Everything That's On My Mind

When I was younger, I collected comic books. My daughter has been having fun browsing my old collection of Avengers and Iron Man. Comic books have often been derided as a lesser art form. To a degree, that description is accurate. The art work certainly doesn't rival Picasso, nor is the writing going to win a Pulitzer prize. At its best, however, comic books can tell important stories on a larger-than-life canvas. I was always a fan of the Marvel universe because I felt it did a better job telling those kinds of stories. To a lesser degree, movies have also been painted with the same broad brush, as a lesser art form with no real power to communicate honestly about the human condition. Christopher Nolan's new movie, The Dark Knight, destroys any such notions about both. In his book Epic, John Eldredge riffs on the ancient idea that all truly great stories are really just the same story because we are retelling the very story we find ourselves in. This idea was never more true than it is in The Dark Knight.

NOTE: If you haven't seen the movie and don't want any plot points spoiled, stop reading now.

The primary antagonist of the film, the Joker (played with terrifying brilliance by the late Heath Ledger), is a self-described "agent of chaos". He longs for a world with no authority and no rules. He believes that every man is evil at the core, that basic goodness is a facade created by societal structures. He seeks to prove his thesis by creating situations that corrupt good people and he is quite successful. Even the squeaky-clean District Attorney is driven to selfish madness by the Joker's schemes. Eventually, all of Gotham City seems on the brink of pure anarchistic madness.

On a larger scale, Nolan's vision is intended to draw analogies to our current world situation, with the Joker representing the threat of terrorism. Some fairly obvious parallels are drawn in the methods Batman uses to deal with the threat of the Joker. In fact, every "good guy" in this movie including Batman compromises their morality in one way or another in their attempt to do good. That is the real and certainly unintended theme of the movie: the universality of sin. The idea that we are all, at our core, selfish people who will do evil to protect the things we love. As Jim Gordon (portrayed by the always brilliant Gary Oldman) states in the film, the Joker "was able to corrupt the best of us". While Nolan softens that conclusion by allowing the humanistic ideal to win out, I think most people would admit that in the real world humans would not be so altruistic. The chilling truth of The Dark Knight is that the Joker is right. All human beings are selfish by nature and prone to evil, both great and small.

The true hero of this movie is a character billed only as "Tattooed Prisoner" played by ministering Christian Tommy 'Tiny' Lister. When he and his fellow prisoners are given the opportunity to save their own lives by murdering a group of civilians who have the same choice, Tiny's character ensures that none of his fellow prisoners will take advantage of that opportunity. Then he gathers together with other prisoners and begins to pray. I suspect the faith of Lister's character was his own private contribution to the film and that he improvised this final, quiet gesture. Whatever the source, Nolan kept it in the film and it's my favorite moment in the movie.

The Dark Knight is a phenomenon. It is posed to become one of the highest grossing films in years. For the thoughtful Christian, it also provides an open door to discuss human nature and the reality of sin.

What, you may ask, are the Felix Awards? Well, I don't see enough movies to voice an opinion on the Oscars, so the Felix Awards are my votes for film awards based on the movies I actually have seen this year. May I have the envelopes please?

Best Screenplay: Diablo Cody - Juno

Juno is a wonderful story of an uncommon teen with an all-too-common problem. Diablo Cody's screenplay is laugh-out-loud funny without (for the most part) being crude, sensitive without being sappy, and poignant without being melodramatic. I especially appreciated her portrayal of Juno's parents as honest, involved, and caring rather than the typical caricature. I hope she's not a one hit wonder.

Runner-up: Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard - Gone Baby Gone

Best Actor: Tie between Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
(I'm not going to bother with the lead vs. supporting distinction on the next two awards.)

Javier Bardem has created one of the great movie villains/monsters of all time. The scene In No Country for Old Men where Chigurh asks a confused gas station attendant to call a coin toss that, unbeknownst to him, will determine whether he lives or dies is utterly terrifying. Not since Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter have I seen pure evil personified so effectively. At the same time, Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of the world-weary and increasingly despondent Sheriff Tom Bell was equally powerful.

Runner-up: Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd

Best Actress: Ellen Page - Juno

Any actor with any experience at all will tell you that comedy is much harder than drama. Because of the highly stylistic dialog, the role of Juno MacGuff is particularly fraught with peril. It could so easily have been turned into a silly caricature. Ellen Page walked the tightrope like a Wallenda. The transformation of her character was so subtle, yet so real. I totally believed every moment of her performance. That may be hard for some people to grasp but if you've ever spent time with my daughter, you understand. Kids as intelligent, witty, quirky, and random as Juno really do exist.

Runner-up: Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone

Best Director: Joel and Ethan Cohen - No Country for Old Men

The Cohen's are amazingly skilled. Their movies are consistently original and artistically powerful. Unfortunately, in this case, those skills served a depressing story. No Country for Old Men is marvelous filmmaking. You just can't take your eyes off the screen, even when you want to. It is a hopeless, nihilistic story but their skill in telling it is undeniable. It's perhaps the best pure horror film since The Shining.

Runner-up: Jason Reitman - Juno

Best Picture: Juno

Based on the reviews, I went into this movie expecting to like it. I was wrong. I loved it. Juno works on so many levels. A great screenplay, effective soundtrack, and fantastic performances from J.K. Simmons, Jennifer Garner, Allison Janney, and most of all Ellen Page. It's rare you find a comedy with this kind of depth and rich, multi-dimensional characters.

Runner-up: No Country for Old Men

And now for a few silly categories:

Best Hero: Jason Bourne - The Bourne Ultimatum

Here's hoping that the CIA never wise up and leave him alone.

Best Villain: Anton Chigurh - No Country for Old Men

I'm not sure who I'd rather meet in a dark alley, Anton Chigurh or Hannibal Lecter. I'm leaning toward Lecter.

Best Movie That Could Have Been: I Am Legend

Boy, this could have been a great movie, but someone forgot to write a decent ending...like, for example, the one in the original book. Dumbing down the story for a nice, Disney ending just killed this movie. A really good performance by Will Smith was wasted here.

Worst Movie: Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End

My daughter will argue with me all day and all night on this one, but this movie is just bad, bad, bad. Only Johnny Depp's performance makes it watchable at all.

Most Unexpected Laugh: How To Hook Up Your Home Theater (animated short before National Treasure: Book of Secrets)

This Disney short starring Goofy was a great surprise. Honestly, I may have enjoyed it more than the feature. I hope this is a trend toward the return of the classic short film before features. Probably not, though.

Movies I'm Sorry I Missed (but hope to see eventually):

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Atonement
August Rush
Charlie Wilson's War
Michael Clayton
3:10 to Yuma
There Will Be Blood

There's a great uproar in certain Christian circles regarding the new movie The Golden Compass, which comes out next month. This movie is based on the first book of a series by Philip Pullman. Pullman is one of the new "evangelical atheists" (my term, AFAIK) along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who are actively trying to rid the world of all religions. I have not read Pullman's books, and I expect you haven't either, but author and film reviewer Jeffery Overstreet has and you can read his summary over at the FamilyLife Culture Watch blog.

Historically, a movie like this generates massive protests, email campaigns, and cries for the destruction of Hollywood. Such protests are silly and counter-productive to the extreme. They provide free marketing for the movie in question and in the end probably cause more people to see it rather than less. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.

Christians spend far, far too much time worrying about the "competition" and screaming about how wrong they are. What happened to the Good News? Have we lost faith in the power of the Gospel to the point that we feel it needs our protection? Michael Spencer (the iMonk) has expressed this more eloquently than I could in his fantastic post called "I'm Not Afraid of Atheists (or Their Movie)" which I highly recommend reading. We need to "overcome evil with good", not with a culture war. Paul never needed to attack his opponents, he just preached the Truth. That's what we as Christ-followers need to get back to.

I'll close with this quote from Leadership Journal:

"Paul doesn't bash Artemis. When you tell the story well, you don't have to bash. It's clear. In fact, in Acts 19, the city clerk says to the rioting mob, "Paul has never blasphemed the goddess." One of the distinctive things about the Jesus revolution is they never blasphemed the gods of the cities, and yet the whole city became Christian. That has unbelievable implications for what Christians are doing right now—preachers bashing Hollywood—When you tell the story well, you don't have to."

~ Rob Bell

I love Ben Stein. Many know him only from Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Win Ben Stein's Money, or silly commercials, but he's also an incredibly intelligent (first in his class at Yale Law School) and articulate writer...and terribly funny too. It appears he has leveraged both his intelligence and humor in a new project, Expelled. It's definitely on my must-see list now.

HT: FilmChat

Somebody suggested I put the video illustration from Sunday's message up on YouTube. I'm no lawyer but I think this qualifies under Fair Use copyright law, so here it is:

The folks over at Christianity Today Movies have been taking some heat lately for publishing less-than-glowing reviews of recent films made by Christians while positively reviewing "questionable" R-rated movies. CT has published a commentary on the topic. It's actually an edited version of a blog entry by Jeffery Overstreet, one of the CT Movies reviewers. I highly recommend reading it, and then re-reading it.

This issue and these responses got me thinking about a related issue. There seems to be a feeling among some Christians that we should all be "nice" to each other, that we should never criticize each other, especially if we're doing the "right thing". In other words, if the message is the right message, you shouldn't criticize how the message is being communicated. I think this attitude is wrong-headed.

The underlying assumption here is that being nice = being loving. It's not true. In fact, sometimes being nice is most assuredly NOT the loving thing to do. We are called to spur one another on in the most literal sense of the word. The NIV and NET translations chose the word "spur" because the original Greek word literally means "a sharpening". Sometimes, being "spurred" is painful, just ask any horse.

We must speak the truth in love, but we still must speak the truth. Our primary goal as Christians should not be to avoid conflict but to provoke continual growth and maturity, not just in areas of life traditionally considered "spiritual" but in all areas of life. We need to encourage and cheer for each other when we use our gifts, but to deny each other the "spur" of constructive criticism is to act un-lovingly.

I appreciate Jeffery Overstreet, Peter Chattaway, and their collegues over at CT Movies. I value their reviews and the way they address both the message and the artistic qualities of movies in an honest way. Keep up the good work, folks. Spur Christian artists on to excellence. It's the loving thing to do.

I was all set to get up this morning and write a blog entry about Groundhog Day, one of my all-time favorite movie comedies. Imagine my surprise when, lo and behold, Keith beat me to it. I don't know whether to thank him for saving me the effort, be angry that he cheated and posted it on February 1, or wonder about his strange mental abilities. (Get out of my head!!!) Anyway, enjoy his post. I'll try to beat him to the punch next time.

 This video is just brilliant. I wish I knew more about video editing...or at least knew someone who could do it.

BTW, Happy New Year!

HT: FilmChat

First the good. The movie is fairly faithful to the biblical account. Most of the key passages of Matthew and Luke are included in some form. Zechariah's Song is missing, and the Magnificat is displaced, but I didn't have any major quibbles. The theological and supernatural aspects of the story were certainly not downplayed in any way. The cinematography is beautiful; there are some very stunning shots throughout the movie. From an acting standpoint, Shohreh Aghdashloo is particularly effective as Elizabeth. Despite the challenges of playing such an iconic character, Keisha Castle-Hughes is able to give Mary both innocence and gravitas, which is no small feat.

The movie really is Mary's story, and that is where it finds its strength. We're pulled into Mary's world and clearly shown the struggles faced by her community. The tyranny of Herod and Rome, the poverty and hopelessness, and the hope for a savior are clearly in view. We see the shame and scandal of Mary's unexpected pregnancy, the ramifications she and Joseph must endure. We see the perils of the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Catherine Hardwicke does a really good job of transporting the audience into first century (or more accurately, last century) Palestine. The script, however, is uneven. Switching from Hebrew to "biblical" English to modern English is disorienting. I wish they would have picked one and stuck with it.

The last act is where the movie seems to lose its footing, falling into Hollywood cliches. Bringing the Magi in on the night of the birth provides the visual of a traditional nativity scene, but it just didn't work for me. Maybe I'm getting too technical here, but that's just me. Making the Magi the most theologically aware characters in the movie, however, really put me over the edge. Having these pagan astrologers spouting Pauline theology took a good movie back to the realm of a bad Christmas pageant. The same is true for the decision to have the Bethlehem massacre happen on the night of the birth. It did nothing except provide the nice Hollywood climax with the "exciting" narrow escape.

Despite its flaws, The Nativity Story is a decent movie. It's just not a great movie. It does a good job illustrating the daunting challenges faced by Mary and Joseph and the great faith they displayed. Most Christians will enjoy this movie, and gain a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus. For that alone, I can recommend this movie, even if it isn't Oscar material.

I ran across this article in the LA Times and it struck a raw nerve with me. It seems I'm regularly confronted by Christians who seem to think piracy is just something Johnny Depp does in the movies. Unfortunately, illegal downloading, swapping, and copying of copyrighted material (primarily music and movies) is just as rampant among Christians as it is in the rest of society. There's one very simple verse that addresses this behavior.

"You shall not steal."

“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable”

~Brennan Manning

It’s with some trepidation that I begin this blog entry. As Brian McLaren has outlined recently, trying to address the issue of homosexuality is a minefield for those of us trying to accurately represent both the truth of God’s word and the truth of His love for sinners. With this year’s movies like “Brokeback Mountain”, “Transamerica”, and to a lesser degree, “Capote”,* Hollywood has brought this issue to the forefront like never before. Many in the Christian community have decried the purported agenda of these movies. On the eve of the Academy Awards, I offer a few observations on the issue of homosexual behavior.

• Homosexual behavior is sin. There is no honest, literal reading of scripture that can come to any other conclusion. However, it is not a “special” sin. It is no different to God than the sins we find “more acceptable” like divorce, lust, or greed. As fallen human beings, we classify sins. Those who are overcome by sins that we ourselves are tempted by receive our understanding and mercy, whereas those who are overcome by sins that we are not tempted by are more likely to be condemned and ostracized. God has no such categories. Spending time browsing the latest Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is no less repugnant in God’s eyes than homosexual activity.
• We need to learn how to listen, even to viewpoints that we disagree with. Listening, discussing, and caring will not “compromise” the Gospel. Quite to the contrary, how can we expect anyone to listen to our viewpoint if we are unwilling to listen to their viewpoint? Spreading the Gospel does not require silencing the voices of dissent; the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to overcome all opposition. Have we learned nothing from church history?
• Can we as Christians please refrain from joining the fraternity of the perpetually offended? Do we really want to be associated with PETA, NOW, Greenpeace and the rest of the professional protest industry? When I read scripture, I don’t see Jesus or John or Paul or James or Peter decrying the decay of Roman society or calling for political change. Picket lines and press releases do not help spread the Gospel. The fires of revival are not fed by political action; they are fed by prayer, devotion, and holiness.

Yes, we live in a society that is in decline. Yes, voices we disagree with are getting louder and louder. Yes, behaviors that God calls sin are becoming more and more acceptable in our culture. The answer is not political power; the answer is Holy Spirit power. Our calling is not to protest, but to make disciples. Our message is not one of condemnation, but one of love.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
James 3:9-10 (NIV)

* Full disclosure: I have not seen any of the three movies mentioned above. The only one I have any plans to see is “Capote”. In fact, as I look at the list of Oscar nominees I realize I have seen very few of the nominated movies this year and none of the Best Picture nominees, which is surprising to me.

Prince Caspian Given Go-Ahead

I received my alumni magazine from Anderson University the other day and found a great surprise. Some of my fellow alums are the creative minds behind the new movie “Hoodwinked”! So I had to take Bekah to see it tonight. Gotta support da homies. The verdict? Great script (loved the “Fletch” references), good score (John Mark Painter!), but an undersized animation budget. Not Oscar material, but a good start for these 30-somethings. I’ll be on the lookout for their next effort. 

As a life-long fan of the cinematic arts (yes, I own copies of "Citizen Kane" and "Casablanca"), I’m excited to see Christians finally getting back into this business. I believe that the decline of morality in Hollywood movies is partly the fault of the church, which abandoned the industry for years. Christians retreated into their sub-culture and created sub-standard fare only for themselves, just like we did in the music industry. Lately, we’ve seen a resurgence of quality movies made by Christians or informed by the Christian faith. I hope this trend continues, and I hope the church wholeheartedly supports these movies. Hollywood is controlled by box office receipts. If family-friendly and faith-based movies do well in the theaters and on DVD, they will make more. 

I’m encouraged by people like Philip Anschutz, a Christian billionaire who has invested his wealth in creating such films. One of his companies, Walden Media, is developing the “Chronicles of Narnia” movies, as well as other family-friendly films based on great books like “Charlotte’s Web”. His other company, Bristol Bay Productions, was involved in the movies "Sahara" and “Ray”, which wasn’t necessarily family-friendly but was a very worthwhile film.

Another example is Every Tribe Entertainment, who created “End of the Spear” which is being released next week. This movie tells a different perspective of the story made famous in the book “Through Gates of Splendor”. Next month brings the release of “The Second Chance”, a movie directed by one of my personal heroes, Steve Taylor. I just hope and pray Michael W. Smith can actually act. 

We cannot reach our culture with the gospel by hiding from it. Jesus did not come so that we might have our own sub-culture and have it more abundantly. He commanded us to be salt and light IN the world. Christian doctors don’t treat Christian patients exclusively, why should Christian artists be restricted in such ways?

Now if someone would just have the courage and vision to make a Stephen Lawhead book into a movie…

My extra-brief review: Thumbs Up! (I hope I don't get a nasty call from Roger Ebert's lawyers for that.) The movie is a faithful and effective adaptation of the book. It is a thrilling adventure that can be enjoyed and appreciated by the entire family, and that kind of movie is a rare thing these days. All the important themes and symbolic elements have been retained, and some have possibly been enhanced. Given the box office results ($67+ million in the first weekend), I expect filming to start soon on the next Chronicle...which reportedly will be Prince Caspian. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to film a couple Chronicles simultaneously, just to make sure the young actors don't age too much.

The rest of my "review" will be formatted as "spoiler text" so I don't ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. To view it, use your mouse to select the text below.

First off, the kids. Georgie Henley (Lucy) is wonderful. Anna Popplewell (Susan) makes the most of her role, but doesn't have too many opportunities to shine. Skandar Keynes (Peter) and William Mosely (Edmund) are OK. As for the rest of the cast, Tilda Swinton was magnificent as Jadis. She brought just the right aire of menace without going over the top. Liam Neeson's voice work as Aslan was fine, but I would have picked someone else. I'm not sure who, but his voice just didn't work for me. Ditto on Michael Madsen as Maugrim...just didn't work for me. But I'm just picking nits at this point.

The CGI was simply amazing. I never would have believed they could rendered such a realistic lion, let alone the other fascinating characters of Narnia. I can't imagine C.S. Lewis having any problems with these anthropomorphic animals, despite his well-publicized letter to the contrary.

As far as the story goes, there are always necessary changes when a book is adapted to film. It is possible to argue the propriety of those changes ad infinitum, as any Tolkien fan will tell you. The changes here are generally more subtle, therefore less controversial. I can't imagine anyone making a big deal about most of them. Aslan's explanation of the "deeper magic" was changed, but I don't think it was diluted significantly. I liked the additional backstory elements, particularly the way they tied into the story later. For example, the way Edmund goes back for the broken picture of his father, then later sees a broken picture of Mr. Tumnus' father. It added depth to Edmund's character. I also liked the way Peter began his battle with the White Witch in the same way he had observed battles beginning in England...via an aerial bombardment. It just made sense to me.

So much for my first attempt at a movie review, or at least a movie comment.