I’ve only seen the movie once and that was a long time ago. All I vividly remember is a single scene in it, the one where Marlon Brando and Karl Malden are having a conversation: Brando is in jail; Malden is the sheriff.

The movie is “One-Eyed Jacks,” the only movie Brando ever directed – but the direction is really beside the point, other than making for good trivia. jacks1.jpg The story is what is important and, in particular, that one scene I remember. The plot goes something like this:

Brando and Malden rob a bank in Mexico, making off with a small fortune in gold. All is well for a little while but, in time, the Mexican federales track down the duo and shoot it out with them. Brando’s horse is killed and Malden takes off to find another ride for his partner. Away from the fray, however, Malden thinks better of the rescue and betrays Brando, riding away with the gold. Brando is captured and sent to prison; Malden escapes and heads to California with the gold from the heist.

After five years in prison, Brando escapes (or is released – I can’t remember) and sets out to find Malden and exact his revenge. Malden – who has “changed” during the time his former partner has been in prison – has settled in California where he is not only wealthy and married, but also highly respected and in fact the sheriff of the town.

Coming to Sheriff Malden’s town, Brando and his gang attempt a holdup but, when it fails, he is publically whipped by Malden; part of Brando’s salacious revenge is to seduce the sheriff’s stepdaughter. When Brando’s gang attempts another holdup and accidentally kills a child, Malden sees an opportunity to eliminate his former partner (even though, if memory serves, Brando was not with the gang when the killing happened).

It is while Brando is in Malden’s jail that the memorable dialogue takes place; indeed, it is from this scene that the title for the movie is taken. Malden is a well-respected man about town but, in the privacy of the jail, lets Brando know that he intends to kill him and remove the threat of being exposed. Unfazed by the favorable, naïve impression the locals have for Malden, Brando responds,

“You may be a One-Eyed Jack around here, but I’ve seen the other side of your face.”

I was eleven years old when the movie came out in 1961; I’m sure I did not see it in the local theater. I first recall watching it on television sometime during my teen years and Brando’s statement to Malden – along with another useful line: “Get up! Get up, you scum suckin’ pig!” – has stuck with me for forty years or so.

For those not familiar with Western playing cards, One-Eyed Jacks are playing cards; specifically, they are the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Hearts. Only a profile is shown of these two knaves, rendering the other side of the face invisible and unknowable; hence, “One-Eyed Jacks” refers to people that do not allow themselves to be fully known and carefully control what is accessible and knowable to others.

Exactly why the notion of “One-Eyed Jacks” has stuck has to do with my upbringing, which is not the subject of this post. Suffice it to say that my father was quite a One-Eyed Jack himself and the movie helped me make some sense of an otherwise confusing situation. Regardless of its origin, however, the concept has given me a perception and perspective that has not failed or abandoned me over time, although there have been unfortunate periods of time when I have failed to employ or have abandoned it. I’ve always regretted such lapses in retrospect.

Jack of Diamonds, Jack of Clubs, Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ was anything but a One-Eyed Jack: He was exactly what He was, although He may have appeared differently to different eyes. There was (and is) in Christ an integrity unattainable by any sinful human being, an integration of the total personality, and an awareness of motivations and behavior beyond comprehension. What He did was ever in harmony with what He felt and thought; what He thought with what was done and felt; what was felt with deed and thought. As the writer of Hebrews told us, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (13.8).

Like the Jack of Diamonds and the Jack of Clubs, both sides of Jesus Christ’s face were visible at all times: He hid nothing that needed to be or should have been revealed.

Without question, any apparent inconsistencies or incongruities were not in Him but rather in the eyes and ears that beheld and heard Him. He was a window through which God could be seen (Jn 1.18, 12.45, 14.9); in Him the Image of God was displayed without the distorting effects of sin (Col 1.15, Heb 1.3). God was present in Jesus Christ for anyone to see: this was one aspect of the example He lived for us.

Sadly, this is not the example many any of us are able to follow with total success. Whereas Christ was without sin, Christians continue to “have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor 4.7) and cannot reflect God without distortion. This is inevitable in this lifetime, with only glimpses of Him manifested in and through us by His grace: our new selves are in the process of being renewed in the image of Christ (Col 3.10), but it has not been and will not be realized this side of heaven. This inability to perfectly reflect the image of God, however, does not relegate all Christians to the status of One-Eyed Jacks.

As alluded to above, there is more to being a One-Eyed Jack than simply failing to perfectly reflect at all times the divine nature of which we have become partakers (2 Pet 1.4). Being a One-Eyed Jack requires conscious, deliberate efforts to present a carefully prepared face to the world while hiding or veiling the rest for the purpose of controlling the perceptions of others. This is what Malden did in his town and what countless Christians have done and continue to do in the church for years. There is a nascent and ineluctable evil in being a One-Eyed Jack, an intransient and intractable vestige of our Adamic nature.

Convincing ourselves that the end justifies the means, we often fall prey to the allure of maintaining a façade in the one place where no such pretense or deception should be necessary: the fellowship of other believers. It is common in the pulpits and in the pews but it is difficult to know which usually comes first; it is not so difficult, however, to know which must come first for genuineness and integrity to pierce the façades. If the shepherd leads the sheep will either follow suit, look for less-transparent pasture elsewhere, or reveal themselves to be goats rather than sheep.

Similarly, we attempt to do the same sort of hiding in the singular place where it is utterly impossible: in the presence of God. Who among us has not come to God as we think we should rather than simply as we are? Who has not prayed “King James” prayers instead of mumbling and stumbling our way through an audience with the King? Like children trying to be good to gain approval and acceptance, we clean up our acts and ourselves before meeting with God, as though we will succeed in throwing dust in His eyes.

We do not, of course, fool Him, although we may succeed in fooling others; what is worse, however, is that we often accomplish self-deception: like the individual to whom James refers, we fail to see, recognize, or remember what we have just seen in the mirror of God’s word. We convince ourselves that we are other than we truly are.

What causes us to be so disingenuous, by which I mean both insincere and calculating? Well, the simple – as well as complex – answer is sin. The manifestations of the sin nature are numerous, but two of the more powerful and common are perhaps weakness and fear: “weakness” in that we lack the moral courage and integrity to put our lives on display without control of others’ perceptions; “fear” because we care too much about what people think of us and how we appear in their eyes. In like fashion, we fail due to weakness because we cannot accept the unvarnished truth about ourselves; due to fear because, like Dorian Gray, we cannot bear to reflect upon the real picture of our fallen nature. We choose to think more highly of ourselves than we ought instead of accepting the unpleasant and seemingly unacceptable reality of our flesh (Rom 12.3).

All of this is hardly revelatory: the shallowness and tartuffery existing in the church and the self-deception of believers have been decried by many. But I thought it necessary to delve a little more deeply into the problem, which exists first in each of us individually and then manifests itself in our relationships with others and with God.

In my next post, I will discuss and elaborate on a darker motivation for the existence of One-Eyed Jacks in the pulpits and pews of the Body of Christ. You might want to read Tim Challies post on anonymity, available here.

And, this blog being what it is, I eventually will draw from and connect it to The Lord of the Rings.

Next: Pulpits, Pews & One-Eyed Jacks: The Quest for Power and Domination



Namárië.