David Bowie: Short Rant About Lazarus Reviews

A short drabble about why I love Bowie, and why reviews of his work can be frustrating for me.

I finally gave in and read about the Lazarus musical in The Complete David Bowie by Pegg today (after a major spoiler was revealed to me today after almost 2 years of no spoilers!) and I saw this review:

"David Bowie has landed on East Fourth Street with a work of blistering nihilism, no small sum of inscrutable foolishness and a fistful of the most brilliant contemporary rock songs you will hear anywhere....At its core, Lazarus is a two-hour meditation on grief and lost hope (with no intermission), but it takes so many wild, fantastical, eye-popping turns that it never drags." - Deadline Hollywood

And it made me quite upset. Anything pertaining to Bowie's work, but particularly his last two great works (★ and Lazarus), and nihilism gets me incensed. I even wrote a 50-page review of ★ to explain why a few months ago. But my main critique is that I think critics who only see/discuss the symbols and imagery Bowie uses that relate to said philosophy do a disservice to his larger work as a whole.

That's not to say that nihilism isn't present in his work. The film itself which inspired this sequel (of sorts) wrestles with existentialism and nihilism - a bleak message about a bleak world. And of course many interviews with Bowie confirm that he personally often struggled with finding a sense of hope and optimism in a world filled with suffering and injustice. For instance, during a 1983 interview with Susan Sarandon:

Sarandon: You’re also a responsible father raising a child, does this change your perspective?
Bowie: Yeah, it changes a lot. I think when you’re young and you’re determined to crack the big dream "of I have a big statement, and the world needs to hear my statement" and all that, there’s something very irresponsible about your attitude to the future - there’s a non-recognition that the future exists. I think it’s very important for youth to have that. I think it’s the anger and the excitement and the enthusiasm of the moment - is a real starting point for any person in their further outlook to life. But there becomes a slow change and a child brings that - with a new view point. For me my son always keeps bringing me back to the - I keep remembering that there is a tomorrow, when that never really occurred to me before, that there was a tomorrow - tomorrow? I mean it was really, This is it! This is now! This is important! Everything else is crazy and static and it means nothing or everything’s impermanent therefore I will just live for the second.
Sarandon: So do you worry about the world he’s inheriting?
Bowie: Yes, of course, naturally. That’s the natural thing that follows. And one has to start taking very positive stands on things-as long as one knows all the information.
Sarandon: Do you think it’s possible?
Bowie: Yes, of course it is. It’s just as easy to say “yes” to something and "yes" to being positive. It’s much easier, frankly, I think to be nihilistic and to be negative. It’s always an easier start.
Sarandon: Well there’s no follow through to it, (no) so you can lay back and watch it happen and you don’t participate it’s always easier-
Bowie: -And it will happen- It’s an accumulative device. The more that you write about the negative, the more that you increase the currency value of negativity. If you decide and make a decision to write positively, then you are contributing to whatever is left that is positive in life. So it just all has to be a greater decision by more people to be more positive about the more positive things in life.

And in two different quotes from a 1995 interview about his album 1. Outside:

My input into "Heart's Filthy Lesson" was that the filthy lesson in question is the fact that life is finite. That realisation when it comes, usually later in life, can either be a daunting prospect or it makes things a lot clearer. Fortunately for me, I see it without a sense of unease and for me knowing that I've got a finite length of time on earth actually clarifies things and makes me feel quite buoyant. 

[....] I can't remember who said it, I wish I could, but it's something to the effect of that religion is for people who believe in hell and spirituality is for people who've already been there.

And finally in two different quotes about his 2003 album Reality:

You see, as much as the album is trying to create anchors that I know actually aren’t there, there are also these devices that I need to put into my life so that my daughter has the impression from her dad that she has some kind of future. I can’t talk about negativity in the same way as I would have done before she was born - every time I say, “The world is fucked up and not worth living in”, she’s going to look at me and say, “Well, thanks for bringing me into it”. I’m morally obliged to find whatever out there is worth living for. 

[....] Maybe I wouldn’t have bothered so much, or maybe this album wouldn’t have had that half-hearted attempt to find the silver lining, if I didn’t have my daughter. Because it’s very easy for me to be quite nihilistic … I think that things are pretty much as they always have been for the last 25,000 years. I don’t think we’re really evolving much above the caveman sensibility. It’s still about surviving and killing and looking after one’s immediate family. Not much more than that has happened, frankly. Technologically, obviously things have moved along at a speed that we don’t understand, nor can control, because our emotional and spiritual sides are so far behind our abilities to manufacture stuff. So I’m not very positive, but I have to change all that. (Pegg, 2016)

Bowie's music reflects this struggle with finding hope in the face of an unforgiving world. But to say that nihilism "wins the day" would be to grossly misinterpret his work.

If you read any post or testimonial about why a true Bowie fan loves Bowie it's never because he offers them a message of emptiness. It's always about the understanding, connection, and hope that fans feel from the artist. A true Bowie fan feels connected to his work, which in turn offers them hope about the future. I've read many accounts where, for instance, "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide" offered a depressed fan a glimmer of hope that someone else understood their struggles, and that they really were "Not Alone". The love and devotion fans have for Bowie is because he offers them a place - through his music - to feel understood, to feel connected, and to feel hope. And all of these things are diametrically opposed to the actual philosophy of nihilism.

Not to mention that a two-hour meditation on grief would never result in "lost hope" for someone as "spiritual" as Bowie. Throughout his life, he unexpectedly lost many friends and family members (his dad, his half brother, Bolan, Lennon, etc.) but his ultimate outlook on celebrating life always seems to win out - just look at "'Heroes'", which is all about choosing to love despite the frailty of humanity.

And of course, Lazarus itself should be a "dead" give away that the musical could never be about empty nothining-ness after death. The original story found in the Gospel of John is all about Resurrection and Hope. Not death and despair.

For those who don’t know, the story can be found in John 11:1-44, and it is traditionally viewed as the final “sign” of Christ. In it, a man named Lazarus from the city of Bethany is ill and Jesus is asked to heal him. However, Jesus does not go immediately to him. This is because he knew that, “[Lazarus’] illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” (11:3) Instead, Jesus waited to go to Bethany after Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days. Once he goes there, he is confronted by mourning and grief for Lazarus’ death. He too weeps with those assembled, moved by the reality of suffering and death. However, the people’s grief soon turns to joy and belief in Jesus as Christ. Jesus is lead to the tomb that Lazarus was buried in, and called for him to come out before the man himself emerges. As Biblical scholars point out, the fact that John does not record Lazarus’ response or the aftermath of his resurrection (other than that the people believed), shifts the story of Lazarus to that of Jesus, Glorifying God.

Thus, why would a musical which uses this story as its eponymous source of inspiration be about despair and death? The story doesn’t stop with Lazarus dying. It does convey the real sorrow and grief felt by Jesus and the crowd at the reality of suffering in this life. However, the narrative most definitely doesn’t stop there. And Lazarus isn’t known as “that one friend of Jesus’ who died."

Not only that but in case you missed it, even the cover design for Lazarus includes the outline of a city skyline. A skyline which includes a cross. It also makes a point to outline the “US” in Lazarus, once again pointing to the community and common bond we have as humanity under God.

And after listening to the beautiful arrangements of the different songs, I can’t help but think (without seeing the play) what type of nihilistic musical about emptiness after death would end with one of Bowie’s most famous songs about love, the previously mentioned “‘Heroes’”?

One of the musical’s major plot points is seeking “release” through death. Critics are quick to point to a Bowie song from long ago (“Quicksand” 1971) which really did embrace a nihilistic philosophy about death offering an oblivious release from the crushing torment and emptiness of existence. And the musical’s climax ending with a sombre rendition of “‘Heroes’” suggests a similar emptiness.

I would argue that, yes, the arrangement is more “sombre”. It’s not a triumphant rock anthem like the original. But this rendition is also achingly beautiful and hopeful (I legit shed a few tears listening to it in comparison I wasn’t as moved by the original piece done by Bowie). In particular, the duet in which the main characters sing the lines, “Cause we’re free now, and that is a fact/Yes, we’re free now/And that is that” is particularly moving. It’s a subtle change from the original lyrics of “lovers” to “freedom”, but the effect is still the same. The song is still about choosing love in the middle of a world full of suffering and the frailty of humanity. The song offers a sense of freedom through sacrificial love just like Christ.

And if that doesn't convince you, just look at the lyrics to one of the newest compositions for the musical, "When I Met You".  Although originally intended as a duet for the show, Bowie's rendition of it is hauntingly gorgeous.  Yet another review which irked me about interpreting the song is from O'Leary's website, which wrote:

In its way, it’s a long-delayed response to “Word on a Wing,” Bowie’s prayer for protection and deliverance in a dry season. “A scuzzier version of one of his grand ballads—imagine “Word on a Wing” with three-day growth and hangover,” as Alfred Soto wrote of “When I Met You.”

I definitely agree that it's the compliment to "Word on a Wing", but how can you not see that it's the response to the prayer that was given in the 1976 song? "When I Met You" is all about the speaker finding Truth - God's Truth.  As evidenced by the lyrics:

When I met you (When I met you)
I was too insane (I was too insane)
Could not trust a thing (Could not trust a thing)
I was off my head (I was off my head)
I was filled with truth (I was filled with truth)
It was not God's truth (It was not God's truth)
Before I met you (Before I met you)

In conclusion, no artist can inspire such sheer levels of hope in their audience relating to something “other”, something "out of this world”, without an element of the Divine sneaking through the cracks. And as evidenced by Lazarus there’s something pretty Christian in his art. So is Bowie a Christian? I don’t know. But his art sure is.