elements of considerable power andninsight to go along with the oftensophomoricnhumor. The film’s explorationnof the conflict between sciencenand nature, logic and intuition, andnknowledge and faith occasionalhnuorks: the shot of a tiny, distant airplanencrossing the sun does succeed inneoking conception, man’s conquestnof the material world and his scientificntriumphs, and the tininess of man’snaccomplishments (the plane) comparednto the astness of creation (thensun). In addition, the film’s themes arensynthesized remarkably well in thenscenes inoling E-e and the professor.nThe professor (for short, we’ll callnhim “Satan”) seduces Ee with knowledge:nthe “facts” about the origin of lifenon Earth, and consequently the truennature of man. Satan tells Ee that lifenwas implanted on Earth from elsewherenin the Unierse (Heaen?). “Ifnyou want to see an extraterrestrial,” hensa}s, “look in a mirror.” His scientificnexplanations and animal charm winnher oer. But what has she gained?nKnowledge. And what has she lost?nFaith. It is a er successful translationnof The Fall.nThe relationship between Josephnand Mar}” also proides a nice momentnof epiphany. Joseph, upset oer thenrealization that he will foreer be anfoohiote to his wife’s stor”, says, “I’mnMOVING?nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address on this form withnthe mailing label from your latest issue ofnChronicles to: Subscription Department,nChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,nIllinois 61054.nName_nAddress_nGitvnState. _Zip_n361 CHRONICLESngoing to be your shadow.” To whichnIary replies, “God’s shadow: Isn’t thatnwhat all men are?” All the themes ofnthe film conjoin in that one image:nthat no man can bring life into thenworld, that God’s Son was born of anhuman mother, and that all men arensubjects of God. A director who couldncreate such a moment sureK” couldn’tnhae intended such blasphemies as arenfound elsewhere in the film, could he?nI don’t think he could, and I don’tnthink he did. In all the controcrsnoer this film, one thing which hasnbeen forgotten is that there is a differencenbetween depicting blasphemiesnand condoning them. Nobod}- complainednwhen the Jews in DeMille’snThe Ten Commandments were shownnbuilding the golden ass, because thendirector clearh’ didn’t condone the behaior.nSimilarly, while there is nonindication in the Bible that Mar cernblasphemed against God, clearly Godardndoes not intend her blasphemies tonbe attributed to him as his own feelings.nThe scene is a mistake, andnperhaps e en an insult, but clearh notnmtended as blaspheni}’. Still, it is easnto see how iewers of the film, especialh’nCatholics, with their great deotionnto the image of the Virgin, mightniew the film as blasphemous.nIn the end, both sides are right. HailnMary is a deeph religious film, and itnis also a ulgar, insulting sacrilege. Itnall depends on how } ou look at it. Andnthat, after all, is the director’s ultimatenfailure: that what was intended as ansincerely religious film could be plausiblyninterpreted as a scurrilously irreligiousnfilm. If Godard has not sinned innthought, he certain!}’ has in word andndeed.nSam Karnick is a screenwriter whonlives in Madison, Wisconsin.nARTnWithout a Barrelnby Caroline MorgannThundering through the Falls of Niagaranis the oerflov of all the GreatnLakes except Lake Ontario. The combinednwaterpower of Horseshoe Fallsnand American Falls has been estimatednat some four million horsepower. Bothnnn”Niagara Falls (from above}”nWatercolor on paper by ThomasnDavies. At The New YorknHistorical Societv. January 11-nApril 17, 1986. ‘nFalls drop more than 150 feet; theirncombined v idth is nearh’ four-fifths ofna mile.nEen Oscar Wilde, like Sarah Bernhardtnbefore him, was persuaded to putnon an ungainh waterproof coat beforenstrolling in the spray of these awesomenwaters. Thousands of other touristsnarried at the Falls in the 19th centur}.nHenr}’ James (no common tourist he)ncomplained of the “horribl}’ ulgarnshops and booths and catchpenu}- artificesnwhich hae pushed and elbowednto within the er} spray of the Falls.”nAmong these tourists appeared thenpainters, engraers, and photographersnwhose work graced The New YorknHistorical Societ} this winter in “Niagara:nTwo Centuries of Changing Attitudes,n1697-1901.” The catalog of thenshow reads like a “Who’s Who” of thenHudson Rier School of landscapen]5aintings.nThe Corcoran Galler} of Art innWashington, DC, organized the exhibitionnto celebrate the centenar} of thenNiagara Reseration, the oldest statenpark in America. The Corcoran’snpainting of the Falls b} Frederic EdwinnChurch was the centerpiece of thenshow.nLike most of the representation ofnNiagara Falls in the exhibition.nChurch’s work captures the aestheticnsplendor but not the transcendent terrornof the experience of Niagara.nThese artists hae tamed Niagara as ansymbol of power, just as modern teehnolog}nhas regulated the actual flow ofnthe Niagara River. Only John Trumbull’sneerie double panoramas of thenFalls comes close to translating thenspiritual significance of Niagara.nWhat we hae forgotten is the wan