Foolish Grace | Wake Up Dead Man

So, yes, we’re here again. I mentioned in my previous video essay on nostalgia in the Knives Out series that I came to that theory when doing research and thinking for an essay on Wake Up Dead Man. And, I may have gotten distracted again, so strap in for at least one more after this one. And then I’m done… maybe….

Anyway, I wanted to centre this particular conversation around one scene. I always like taking one scene or one episode and really expounding on it, exploring how and why these small moments are microcosms of wider themes and larger narratives. And this happens in Wake Up Dead Man. It happens a few times in that movie, I won’t lie, but I think there’s one in particular I want to hone in on, and this comes a little over halfway through the film.

Father Judd and Benoit Blanc are scrambling to try and find the truth behind Eve’s Apple. In the manic moment, the two rushing to try and solve the crime in order to clear Father Judd’s name, Father Judd calls a forklift company to get more information. The person on the other end, Louise, is just a receptionist, nattering and chatting about her time at the church before finally answering Judd’s question. Well, kinda. She can’t fully answer it, but will have to contact someone else to do so. But then, everything shifts. She says she needs him to pray for her. Her mother is in hospice, and the two exchanged emotional blows. Louise worries this horrid moment will be the last exchange they have.

And in this moment, the rush of the case, the flurry of the need to save himself, all stops. And Judd no longer rushes to solve his own case, to clear his own name. He is wanted for murder and yet he stops. He, instead, listens to Louise, and gives her his time. He listens to her, he prays for her. And the whole time he does so, Benoit Blanc must sit still, and wait.

I want to talk about this moment, and how it fully embodies a particular Christian conception of Grace. Now, I’m not a Christian. I’m also not an anthropologist who specialises in Christianity. However, I am an anthropologist who has learned her craft in a society and culture heavily influenced by Christianity, and the history of my discipline is also heavily influenced by Christianity. Terms, ideas, and ideologies have flowed freely. And yet, Grace has largely gone completely ignored in anthropology.

But today, I want to talk about it. I want to talk about Grace in Wake Up Dead Man, and how the story and active action of Grace forms an incredibly important function in the story. Let’s de-tangle this particular part of the narrative and also look at the complicated reasons for why Grace is so difficult to talk about for anthropologists.

Lets actually start with Wake Up Dead Man, because there’s an important aspect of the inclusion of Grace that is crucial to the themes of the story, especially in the first half of the film. The movie immediately presents us with violence. Father Judd’s introduction to us is through punching a fellow priest. We learn Father Judd has a history of violence. He was once a boxer, living on the streets, and killed a man when in the ring. It was this moment that led him to change, to find religion and devote himself to the Church.

This violent past is often completely contrasted with his present self, one who is calm, quiet and reserved. Even when confronted with Monsignor Wicks, Father Judd tries his best to remain calm and understanding.

In contrast, Monsignor Wicks’ history, as far as we are aware, has always been with the Church and has not factored in the same level of violence. His contemporary form, however, is one which stokes violence. He thrives on anger and hate, pushing for violence and disconnection in his words. He continues to inflict violence, not with fists like Father Judd’s past, but rather with his oratory skills.

These two are constantly juxtaposed together, trapped in a combative fight over the power in the Church, though it was a fight Judd had no interest in joining. Monsignor Wicks has a constant affect on Father Judd, always pushing him into positions he had no initial interest in going. Monsignor Wicks uses his confession times to try and needle Father Judd, to push him and try and get reactions out of him. Eventually, Father Judd does react. He tells Monsignor Wicks about the importance of love and empathy, and Monsignor Wicks reacts violently to show to Father Judd how the world fully treats him.

Monsignor Wicks’ sudden death, and the pinning of that death on Father Judd, continues to push Father Judd into further uncomfortable positions for him. He begins to get angry, his fury growing as the complications of the moment continue to push on him. He gets worried and scared about how is piling up on him, when he knows that he did not kill him. But it’s the hate toward Monsignor Wicks that Father Judd is truly upset about, wracked with the guilt over a crime he knows he did not commit.

The havoc of the moment, the increased fury and fervour over t he need and intention to solve the crime alongside Benoit Blanc leads to a flurry of actions, caught up in Benoit’s own intentions. And all of this comes careening to a sudden halt when Father Judd hears the words “Will you pray for me?”

He looks at the destroyed Jesus figurine on the desk, realises the emotions he has been fostering and experiencing, and has a moment in which he gives everything of himself to a complete stranger.

Giving. Giving and gifting. Gift theory is a big topic in anthropology, especially the anthropology of religion. Back when I taught first years at University, this was one of the primary topics we covered. The ultimate problem with talking about Grace is this exact thing - gift theory and notions of reciprocity as they are understood in contemporary Western anthropology does not allow for the existence of Grace. Grace is, fully and completely, an anthropological impossibility.

So, let’s talk about it.

Perhaps the most famous anthropologist we can talk about in terms of reciprocity theories is Marcel Mauss. Mauss followed closely the work of sociologist Emile Durkheim, who fundamentally understood religion as being necessarily tied to the social. I mean, he was a sociologist so that should be fairly a given, but its important to note. In reciprocity theories, and the way giving is understood by Mauss, is the basic cliched tenet of “there is no such thing as a free gift.”

If I give you a gift for your birthday, I may very well expect a gift in return. I don’t expect it on the same day I give you your birthday gift, of course, but I may expect it on my birthday. Delayed gratification is still gratification. Giving because someone is going through a hard time is similar. I may not know when I will also need that help, but I expect it to some extent if I gave the same to you.

There is nothing inherently problematic about this view of gifting. In terms of the anthropology and sociology of the thing, this is just the basics of how humans work. It’s also an important functioning part of society. It’s how we all work together, by giving and receiving essentially obligation. It’s how we get through these hard times as a collective, because we can rely on one another and expect the same in return.

This does still work when we factor in religion. If I feed the poor because that’s what God expects of someone who will get into Heaven, then I’m doing it for the eventual returning gift of getting into Heaven. I’m still not doing it for “free”, I expect something. The expectation and the obligatory return is not always necessarily tied to the person receiving, but - in this case - is still present. Mauss does not believe in free gift. While he things some people give without expecting something monetary or physical in return, there is still obligation tied to it, and therefore they both are and are not free gifts.

Derrida, if you don’t mind me dabbling just very briefly into philosophy, has a similar opinion. He describes four primary conditions which must be met for a free gift to exist, and which all combine in order to truly demonstrate that a free gift does not exist. In his conception, for it to be truly a free gift, it cannot be understood as a gift by either the giver or the receiver. He believes the recognition that it is a gift will inevitably lead to notions of obligation, and therefore strip the idea of free gift.

We see this classic idea of reciprocity theory happening in other members of the congregation. Vera gave up her time and independence to raise an illegitimate son because her father asked her. While she only says it once directly, it becomes clear that she desperately wants the approval and love of her father. Vera therefore is giving, but with the expectation of something in return - even though what she wants in return isn’t a material good or even a reciprocal act of service. Expecting love and acceptance in return is also a form of reciprocity.

Simone, suffering from chronic pain, is desperate for a diagnosis and solution to her pain. Having lost faith - a very intentional word choice - in doctors, she has turned to Monsignor Wicks and the church. She gives loads of money financially to the church with the expectation that it will grant her the miracle of health.

Martha, too, gives herself fully to the church, though not as much financially. She gives her service regularly. She cleans vestments and the church itself, plays the organ, organises the office, and so much more. At first, this seems to be a gift she simply gives, but at the end of the movie she wonders if it had all been “for nothing”. It becomes clear she sees her actions as their own reciprocity, not one in which she was expecting anything in return but rather as a form of repayment and obligation to Prentice.

In all these examples, we see gifts being given with expectation. But what is Grace other than, essentially, a free gift? Julian Pitt-Rivers, a British social anthropologist, defined grace as “always something extra, over and above ‘what counts’, what is obligating or predictable". In this configuration, anthropologically, Grace cannot exist. Doing or giving something above and beyond, with no obligation, isn’t possible in this conceived idea of reciprocity. And reciprocity theory is held in such reverence for anthropology, that the argument is fought with ferocity. James Laidlaw, argued that some gifts given are done so in order to create or strengthen social relations. Essentially, me giving you a birthday present raises my esteem and social capital. People respect me more and think of me as a good friend. Laidlaw continued by saying a “free gift” would create none of these important social relations, because it creates no obligations and no connections between people, and therefore is of no importance to anthropologists.

Which, I think, is a bit of a silly way to think about anthropology, though maybe what I think anthropology actually does should be reserved for another essay at another time. But I think Wake Up Dead Man shows us what true Grace, and true free gifts actually look like. I’m sure some might watch it, watch this video essay, and then try and argue with me that Father Judd did create social connections, and I’ll be anticipating those comments, but I think its just more complicated than a lot of anthropologists like to make it. We like to classify things and label them, and put people and their actions in neat little boxes with these clean little definitions. And that’s just not what people are, people are messy and nuanced and complicated. And sure, they often do things out of self interest, or to create social capital, and maybe they do all that without actually realising that’s what they’re doing. But, sometimes, people are also messy and complicated in a way that is genuinely above and beyond what counts, what is obligating and what is predictable.

In this moment, on the phone with Louisa, Father Judd gives. He gives his time, he gives his energy, he gives his prayers. He gives Louisa the urgency he once had, and also gives her the precious time he was given to try and clear his own name in the investigation. Father Judd not only gives all these things, but does so without obligation. Sure, you could argue that it’s his job as a priest to do this. But we have already actively seen examples of someone not doing this and still being praised and heralded at being good at what he does. And Louisa does call Father Judd back with important information for the case, but this is something, its made clear before his giving to her, that she would do regardless.

Our other big moment of Grace comes as inspiration from Father Judd’s act of Grace. Benoit Blanc also gives above and beyond what is expected, what is predicted, and even, as he says, what is deserved. He decides to allow Martha’s story exist as she set it, refusing to finish the grand Christie-esque reveal.

But are these free gifts that Father Judd and Benoit give? As I said before, Father Judd did so without expectation, or even receiving, anything extra from Louisa. But did he receive something? When Benoit Blanc pushes back on him for his gift, he pushes on the question of what Judd gets in return for this giving. Benoit, like many others in the film, assume Father Judd asks out of a need for atonement.

While Father Judd does talk often about his killing in the boxing ring, others stress different parts of the story than he does. For Benoit and the others, they focus on the life lost itself, but Judd focuses more on the role and notion of hate. Whenever he tells the story, he talks about having acted with hate in his heart.

Essentially, others think he must be acting in the classic sense of reciprocity, because like anthropologists they cannot imagine a world in which there is a free gift. They believe all of Judd’s actions must be done for the need for atonement - acting as a way to even out the obligation of his debt to society and the Church.

Judd, however, never speaks this way. He never speaks of atonement and making things up. He, instead, speaks of leading by example, and following the examples that have been set for him. He doesn’t look for anything to alter himself or to bring him anything. He only looks to continue to live.

When talking about his own relationship with God, he does not talk about massive gifts and miracles and transformation. Instead, he talks about simply the ability to continue to live and move on. “He did not transform me,” he says, “He sustains me.”

Therefore, Judd never talks about needing anything or wanting anything. He doesn’t seek to obtain any gifts or obligations in return. Rather, he looks for love, openness and only the ability to continue to live. And this giving is something he tries to give to others. He gives to Monsignor Wicks and Samson and the rest of the Church by hiding Monsignor Wicks’ flask, despite his own growing hate toward the man. He gives to Louisa despite his own life being at risk in the middle of the investigation. And in none of these situations does he get any growth or developments of social relations - his own standing in the village and in the church is getting worse the longer the investigation goes unsolved.

Grace, what Benoit Blanc called “Foolish Grace”, was what altered Benoit’s own perspective. And it was this giving with no recourse or no reciprocity that altered his own perspective, getting his own Dasmascus moment. He gives to Martha - who at this point he already knows is dying. Martha therefore cannot give back to him. Benoit even sacrifices his own social capital by being recorded for the internet saying he cannot solve a crime that he has. Benoit gives without any intention of reciprocity.

I think it’s rather telling, as well, that the last gift that is given by Martha is forgiveness and apology to Monsignor Wicks’ mother Grace. I have a lot more to say about Grace, but I’ll save that for another video.

I don’t like this notion that an anthropologist wouldn't find free gifts interesting. The free gifts given by Father Judd reveal so much about his character, how he thinks about religion and his relationship with God, and how he then sees this as being replicated in his relationship with others. Even though exchange of social relations isn’t at the heart of the action, it’s still revealing.

So I love this scene, this wonderful amazing scene of Father Judd on the phone. It shows us something so fascinating about religion, about the way someone engages with their own deep rooted emotions, how they pull themselves back from the brink of their own emotional destruction of self. It shows how someone can give of themselves so much, not because there is obligation but because there is love and a destruction of hate.