In this movie, you will observe two men having – guess what – a quarrel.  Indeed, their quarrel takes up almost the whole of the movie.  (Sorry, no explosions or car crashes.)  During their quarrel, the two men touch upon some fairly profound topics: death, the meaning of life, the existence of God, the nature of evil.  Things of that sort.  Sometimes they make good arguments; sometimes they do not.  As interesting as their speeches are about death, life, evil, and God – all of which I hope you will pay attention to, many of which will become relevant in the coming weeks – what I am really interested in having you reflect on as you watch this film is the nature of the discussion.

Here are two men who are deeply engaged in arguing about some pretty serious issues.  They are both Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, and their experiences during that tragedy have caused them to come to some radically different conclusions about the world, about life, and about God. Given their experiences, these are not questions about which they have a merely “abstract” interest.  These are pressing questions about which both men feel passionately.  It is easy for us, the viewers, to say: “Well, why can’t they just agree to disagree?” Or: “Why can’t they just admit they might both be right?”  But for these men, whose whole lives were caught up in the horror of the Holocaust, having lost friends and family and futures, it is simply not open to them – precisely because of their friendship and love for one another – to look at one other and say (as teenagers are accustomed to doing): “Whatever.”  “No big deal.  Whatever.”  There is simply too much at stake.

What I would like you to notice in this movie, first of all, is that two people can disagree about some pretty profound issues and still (it seems) remain friends. Indeed, you might ask yourself whether they could have this discussion if they weren’t friends?  But secondly, I would like you to pay attention in particular to when the discussion seems to be going well and when it seems to be going badly.  There are times during their quarrel when each man storms off, and the discussion, as well as their friendship, nearly comes to an end.  Why?  What happened?  What was said or done to bring the conversation to a crisis point?  And what happens that preserves the conversation and allows it to move forward?  When are the men at their best?  And when do they say or do things that – perhaps unintentionally – alienate the other person? 

Each Friday for the nearly the whole of this semester, you will be engaging in a series of discussions with fifteen other people on issues not unlike the ones these two men must struggle with.  You may not have suffered through the Holocaust (thank God), but each of you has his or her own story which will in some ways be similar to others, and yet in other ways utterly unique.  The question is: How can you carry on a meaningful conversation with these people?  By “meaningful,” I mean a conversation where people with very different views come together and actually learn something from each other.  It is easy enough to come together with other people who have views very different from your own, listen to them with a modicum of civility, say nothing (or mutter “Whatever!”), and then go away in disgust.  People do it all the time.

Indeed, in our culture, we generally tend to have two modes of discussion.  Either people quietly listen to one another rambling on aimlessly, agreeing never to disagree with anything anybody else says, no matter how outlandish or ridiculous, or they shout at one other, calling each other names (“liberal whimp,” “conservative pig,” “fascist idiot,” “yellow-bellied dog”), ready to have the other person cast out of their presence, if not out of the school, for deigning to say something so absurd as ... (fill in the blank). Is there nothing in between those two?  Is there no way of “agreeing to disagree”?  And by that I don’t mean “agreeing not to disagree,” which is what most people agree to, but rather, “agreeing to disagree.” That is, is it possible to agree to continue the discussion, and search honestly and openly and with mutual concern for the truth, even when (one might say especially when) we disagree? 

There are some pretty volatile moments in this movie.  There are times when the two men nearly blow apart.  What keeps them together?  What allows the dialogue to continue?  What kinds of things nearly bring it to an end?  If you can learn something from this movie about disagreeing with others, even concerning things that are very important to you and about which you are rightly passionate, then you will have taken an important first step in your education.

Watch.  Listen.  Think.