atonement
atonement 미국·영국 [ətóunmənt] 영국식 중요
1. 보상, 속죄, 죗값
2. [the A~] 그리스도의 속죄
something that you do to show that you are sorry for something bad that you did:
He said that young hooligans should do community service as atonement for their crimes.
---
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/atonement?lang=eng
Atonement
The word describes the setting “at one” of those who have been estranged and denotes the reconciliation of man to God. Sin is the cause of the estrangement, and therefore the purpose of atonement is to correct or overcome the consequences of sin. From the time of Adam to the death of Jesus Christ, true believers were instructed to offer animal sacrifices to the Lord. These sacrifices were symbolic of the forthcoming death of Jesus Christ and were done by faith in Him (Moses 5:5–8).
Jesus Christ, as the Only Begotten Son of God and the only sinless person to live on this earth, was the only one capable of making an atonement for mankind. By His selection and foreordination in the Grand Council before the world was formed, His divine Sonship, His sinless life, the shedding of His blood in the garden of Gethsemane, His death on the cross and subsequent bodily resurrection from the grave, He made a perfect atonement for all mankind. All are covered unconditionally as pertaining to the Fall of Adam. Hence, all shall rise from the dead with immortal bodies because of Jesus’ Atonement. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22), and all little children are innocent at birth. The Atonement is conditional, however, so far as each person’s individual sins are concerned, and touches every one to the degree that he has faith in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, and obeys the gospel. The services of the Day of Atonement foreshadowed the atoning work of Christ (Lev. 4; 23:26–32; Heb. 9). The scriptures point out that no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would be satisfactory if it were not for the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:1–9; 2 Ne. 9:5–24; Mosiah 13:27–32).
Sin is lawlessness (1 Jn. 3:4); it is a refusal on men’s part to submit to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). By transgression man loses control over his own will and becomes the slave of sin (Rom. 7:14) and so incurs the penalty of spiritual death, which is alienation from God (Rom. 6:23). The Atonement of Jesus Christ redeems all mankind from the Fall of Adam and causes all to be answerable for their own manner of life. This means of atonement is provided by the Father (John 3:16–17) and is offered in the life and person of His Son, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). See also Fasts; Sacrifices.
---
The Atonement
William Lane Craig
How did Christ's death overcome the estrangement and condemnation of sinners before a holy God, so as to reconcile them to Him? A great variety of theories of the atonement have been offered over the centuries to make sense of the fact that Christ by his death has provided the means of reconciliation with God: ransom theories, satisfaction theories, moral influence theories, penal substitution theories, and so on. Competing theories need to be assessed by (i) their accord with biblical data and (ii) their philosophical coherence.
---
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized
Stephen D Morrison
Stephen D Morrison
Atonement theoriesThe nature of the Atonement has been a study for me over the last few years. After having my world turned upside by Dr. C. Baxter Kruger in his book, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam, I have not been able to shake this fascination with rediscovering the cross of Jesus Christ. Today I wanted to share seven of the major theories for the Atonement. These theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant, and I hope you enjoy learning some of them today!
#1 The Moral Influence Theory
One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).
Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life. This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignly through the Holy Spirit.
This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.
#2 The Ransom Theory
The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.
The Ransom view could be summarized like this:
“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1
Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way they are drastically different.
#3 Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone, but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.
Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.
This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of inputed righteousness is postulated.
This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.
#6 The Governmental Theory
The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory, which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s salvation. The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus does not die a propitiating death.
#7 The Scapegoat Theory
The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat. Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The crowd is therefore deemed guilty.
James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”
Conclusions
Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall focus of each. I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust theory of the atonement. But thankfully, at the end of the day we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus! How that happens may be fun to discuss and theorized about, but only in sight of the fact that it’s the who that matters far more!
What do you think of all these theories? Does a certain one appeal to you more than the rest? Let me know in a comment!
Recommended reading
The following books are some of the best studies on the atonement I know and recommend for further reading:
Atonement, Justice, and Peace by Darrin W. Snyder Belousek (the best argument against penal substitution I’ve read)
The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge (excellent study on the cross for today’s world)
Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén (a classic study of traditional atonement models)
Atonement: Person and Work of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance (great study by the renowned 20th century theologian)
The Nature of the Atonement by John McLeod Campbell (difficult reading, but historically an important text)
On the Incarnation by Athanasius (don’t let the title fool you: this is a profound text for the atonement in the early church)
Curs Deus Homo: Why God Became Man by Anselm (classic for the “satisfaction” atonement theory)
Against Heresies by Ireneaus (a great example of the atonement in the early church)
Things Hidden Since the Foundations of the World by Rene Girard (for the scapegoat theory)
The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann (one of the best modern works on the atonement)
Church Dogmatics IV/1 by Karl Barth (another modern classic on the atonement, famous for Barth’s notion of the “Judge judged in our place”)
The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (a decent collection of essays to give you a feel for various atonement theories)
Like this article? Help me expand my reach by sharing:
[shareaholic app=”share_buttons” id=”612658″]
Notes:
Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory 1995 ↩
Christus Victor P. 20 ↩
---
Atonement, Christology and the Trinity
Making Sense of Christian Doctrine
By Vincent Br�mmer
Copyright Year 2005
ISBN 9780754652304
Published April 4, 2005 by Routledge
134 Pages
Request Inspection Copy
Available on Taylor & Francis eBooks
Preview this title
Format
Paperback
Quantity
1
AUD $73.99
Prices & shipping based on shipping country
Skip Product Menu
Book Description
For many believers today the doctrines of Atonement, Christology and the Trinity seem like puzzling constructions produced by academic theologians. They are cast in unintelligible forms of thought derived from Platonism or from feudal society, and for many their existential relevance for life today remains unclear. This book introduces these doctrines and proposes a reinterpretation in the light of the claim of many Christian mystics that ultimate happiness is to be found in enjoying the loving fellowship of God. This claim is amatrix of faith in terms of which these doctrines are shown to be relevant for the life of faith of believers today. Furthermore, since this matrix can be defended within all three Abrahamic traditions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the proposed understanding of these doctrines can also contribute usefully to the necessary dialogue between these traditions in a globalised world.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements -- Part 1 Prologue -- 1 The Intelligibility of Christian Doctrine -- Mysteries and Puzzles -- The Limits of Metaphorical Thinking -- The Puzzles of Metaphorical Thinking -- Theology and the Puzzles of Doctrine -- Conclusion -- Part 2 Fellowship with God: The Matrix of Faith -- 2 Ultimate Happiness and Fellowship with God -- Rich and Famous -- Human Love -- Divine Love -- Unhappiness as Estrangement from God -- 3 Estrangement and Reconciliation -- Estrangement -- Reconciliation -- The Price of Reconciliation -- Divine Forgiveness -- Change of Heart -- The Matrix of Faith -- Part 3 Christian Doctrine: Interpreting the Matrix -- 4 The Doctrine of Atonement -- A Point of Departure -- Patristic Ideas on Atonement -- The Universal and the Particular -- Penal Substitution -- Atonement as Reconciliation -- 5 The Doctrine of Christology -- Atonement and Christology -- Natures or Functions? -- Reconciliation and the Divinity of Christ -- Reconciliation and the Humanity of Christ -- 6 The Doctrine of the Trinity -- Atonement and the Trinity -- Social Trinitarianism -- Latin Trinitarianism -- Part 4 Epilogue -- 7 Dialogue and the Matrix of Faith -- The Children of Abraham -- Dialogue and Christian Doctrine -- Exclusivism -- Index.
...
Author(s)
Biography
Vincent Brummer is a philosopher of religion who takes systematic theology seriously. In his new book he uses his philosophical acumen to elucidate central topics of Christian doctrine: the Atonement, Christology, and the Trinity. For him they are not mere theological constructions but have their meaning and function in the context of the believer’s search for ultimate happiness. There is much to be learned from his clear and careful philosophical reworking of classical views of Reformed theology. New and controversial is the idea of a 'matrix of faith' by which Christians claim to attain ultimate happiness and which Brummer believes can be defended not only within the Christian, but also the Jewish and Islamic traditions. This will no doubt provoke discussion, and it should.
---
Atonement
Stephen Finlan
LAST REVIEWED: 30 MAY 2017
LAST MODIFIED: 26 AUGUST 2020
DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195393361-0128
Introduction
Theological usage of the term “atonement” refers to a cluster of ideas in the Old Testament that center on the cleansing of impurity (which needs to be done to prevent God from leaving the Temple), and to New Testament notions that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3) and that “we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (Romans 5:10). In English translations of the Old Testament, “make atonement” usually translates kipper, the verb for the cultic removal of impurity from the Temple or sanctuary, accomplished through the dashing or sprinkling of the blood of the “purification offering” or “sin offering” on particular Temple furnishings. Kipper occurs most often, but not exclusively, in sacrificial texts. Kipper is also performed over the scapegoat in one passage (Leviticus 16:10). Thus, scholarly discussions of atonement in the Old Testament focus on the sacrificial and scapegoat rituals but also attend to the procedure for making a redemption payment, for which the word kopher (cognate with kipper) is used. The most important day in the ancient Jewish liturgical calendar was Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when the supreme sacrificial rituals of the year were performed, and the only day of the year on which the scapegoat rite was performed. Atonement in the New Testament is expressed through metaphors of sacrifice, scapegoat, and redemption to picture the meaning of the death of Christ. The Apostle Paul is the main fountainhead of these soteriological metaphors, but they occur in the other epistles and in Revelation. Atonement imagery is much less common in the Gospels, possibly appearing in the Lord’s Supper and the ransom saying (Mark 10:45). Most (but not all) scholars would agree that atonement in the Old Testament concerns cleansing the Temple (the Deity’s home), not soteriology. In the New Testament, however, atonement is central to the soteriological metaphors in Paul’s letters, the deutero-Pauline letters, Hebrews, First Peter, First John, and Revelation.
General Overviews
All these academic works address atonement and related ideas in both testaments of the Bible. The eleven articles in Beckwith and Selman 1995 cover most aspects of sacrifice in the Bible. Eberhart 2011b is valuable for social and intellectual aspects of sacrifice, while Eberhart 2011a covers sacrifice in both testaments of the Bible and, briefly, in subsequent theology. Finlan 2004 examines Old Testament atonement concepts before scrutinizing Paul’s atonement teachings in depth. Johnson 2017 contains articles on numerous aspects of the atonement discussion. Sykes 1991 looks at many aspects of redemption and soteriology from biblical to modern times.
Beckwith, Roger T., and Martin J. Selman, eds. Sacrifice in the Bible. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1995.
E-mail Citation »
Competent and detailed articles on Levitical sacrifice, kipper and kopher, sacrifice in neighboring cultures, and New Testament concepts of the sacrifice of Christ.
Eberhart, Christian A. The Sacrifice of Jesus: Understanding Atonement Biblically. Facets. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011a.
E-mail Citation »
Excellent short introduction to biblical data and theological debates, accessible to believers and scholars. Shows why the cereal offering can be called a “sacrifice.” Discusses the theme of consecration in both testaments. More thorough with the Old Testament than with the New.
Eberhart, Christian A., ed. Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible. Resources for Biblical Study 68. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011b.
E-mail Citation »
These academic articles examine social backgrounds to sacrificial texts, the burning rite as a defining feature of sacrifice, prophetic rhetoric on sacrifice, the “Yom Kippuring of Passover” imagery, and the Epistle to the Hebrews’ spiritualizing of sacrifice (focusing on inner motives, and speaking of sacrifice metaphorically).
Finlan, Stephen. The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors. Academia Biblica 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.
E-mail Citation »
Examines purification, scapegoat, and redemption in ancient Israel and surrounding cultures in some depth. Explores Paul’s metaphorical usage of these practices, including how he conflates the metaphors, as when sacrificial blood brings judicial acquittal (Romans 5:9).
Johnson, Adam J., ed. T&T Clark Companion to Atonement. New York and London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017.
E-mail Citation »
Has eighteen long articles and eighty-five short “essays,” including “Athanasius’s Incarnational Soteriology,” “Thomas Aquinas’s Pauline Theology of the Atonement,” “The Fury of Love: Calvin on the Atonement,” “Colin Gunton,” “Liberation Theology,” and “Wrath.”
Sykes, Stephen W., ed. Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511659522E-mail Citation »
Articles examine sacrifice and holiness in the Old Testament, the spiritualization of sacrifice in the New Testament, and sacrificial imagery in medieval and Reformation theology.
back to top
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.
How to Subscribe
Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.
----
Why Atonement remains a great modern film about love and war
Joe Wright’s World War Two-era romance is a beautiful story of a young couple torn apart by fate.
Share this
WORDS
LENA HANAFY
Share this
Animal figurines are lined up in a row, as if they are following a ray of light streaming in from the window. They are found to lead up to a giant 13-year-old Briony Tallis, her face obscured as she is furiously typing away at her desk. The staccato tapping of her typewriter leaks into the piano keys of Dario Marianelli’s moody score and Atonement begins.
Ten years on from this major adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel, and with director Joe Wright revisiting World War Two in his next film, Darkest Hour, it seems as good a time as any to revisit Atonement. A story of a young couple torn apart by fate, war and a little girl’s misunderstanding. The emotional punch doesn’t come from the devastating romance, the false accusation or even the war backdrop but from the sound, or lack thereof.
The transition at the beginning of the film is not just a clever piece of sound mixing, but a reference point for Briony’s restlessly imaginative character. Wright conveys the narrative not through dialogue, not through the acting but through the soundtrack. Whenever we hear the typewriter through the rest of the film, we know it means Briony. It means her lies.
Guillermo Del Toro once insightfully observed that, “the look of a movie is a table of four legs. One is of course cinematography, but the other three are wardrobe, set production design and direction.” Continuing this inspired line of thought, it’s fair to say that the emotion in a movie stands on acting, music, editing and dialogue. When one falters, the emotional impact is diminished. Wright seamlessly ties in all of these elements to contribute to the emotional arc at the forefront of every frame.
A perfect example of this is the scene in which Robbie (James McAvoy) realises he gave Briony (Saoirse Ronan) the wrong note to pass on to Cecelia (Keira Knightley), handing over an anatomically indulgent version rather than the formal one intended. Wright states on the director’s commentary that, “one of film’s greatest assets is its potential for rhythm.” Rhythm not only established by the sound, but its cooperation with editing and movement.
When Robbie first calls to Briony from the distance, Wright leaves us waiting in real-time for her to reach him and before he passes over the fatal letter. This long pause is then counteracted by the speed in which she runs away with it, and the familiarly rapid staccato notes begin to play. Through the music Wright is warning us that a pivotal point in the film is coming up. We are reminded of the girl’s restless imagination and the foreboding danger of colliding it with something so adult as an erotic love letter.
And so, the unfortunate series of events leading to the separation of Robbie and Cecelia are put into place. All stemming from a “fanciful” girl not understanding what she sees. We begin to hate the sound of the typewriter, Briony’s staple sound and all it represents. The childish fiction has become cruel lies. Her capricious words are death sentences. In turn, we detest the premise of storytelling as a whole, and the storyteller along with it. Wright beautifully manipulates our emotions and riles them up into a frenzy of hatred towards a little girl.
In a pivotal scene at the very end of the film, an elderly Briony (Vanessa Redgrave) decides to finally tell the truth and reveal the artifice in her story. As opposed to the character’s introduction, her face dominates the screen as if looking directly at the audience. While she speaks, her definitive sound is replaced by the ‘Denouement’ track. Literally meaning the finale, it consists of long, low, sorrowful notes in contrast to the rapid staccato of the piano.
Briony is seeking atonement. Replacing her erratic fascinations with the bleak truth. The sorrowful sounds of her redemption brings the audience face to face with their accusation as this decrepit figure asks, “What sense of hope or satisfaction could a reader derive from an ending like that?” Now, the truth is unwelcome because it holds the tragic injustice of reality.
The interplay of all the music with the themes of the film demonstrate a far more potent, visceral involvement that exercises the tools of filmmaking to their fullest. On a level playing ground, the rhythm of the music, editing and acting all coalesce to project the emotional impression of the scene onto the audience. Atonement is an orchestral symphony, with the director as the conductor stringing all the elements of filmmaking into a harmony of cinema.
PUBLISHED 22 JUL 2017
