On Hugo, Sundays and Matters of Preparation

To view a film is a fascinating experience.

Take my last time in a theatre, for instance.  For our 'Youth Christmas Extravaganza' this year, we opted to split our evening playing games at the church and taking in a late movie.  There are numerous ones available this time of year and so I decided to allow them to vote online for their pick.

This year's pick was Hugo.

Now, sure, it wasn't my first choice--but I maintained a very open mind.  After all, it has gotten great reviews and several people I know were particularly excited about it.  After all, the trailer seemed promising enough and the synopsis of the film describes it as "a thrilling journey to a magical world".  So, I popped on my 3D glasses and settled in for a magical ride.

Man, I was bored.

That's hardly an exaggeration either.  I mean 'bored'.  It's one of only a handful of film experiences I've had that I can say that I chose to go to sleep for a bit.  Not dozed off.  Chose.

Now, let me pause here for a minute.  Oddly enough, I'm not even really being critical of the film.  I could see that it was particularly well-made (although, to be honest, I felt the 3D aspect was entirely unnecessary).  The film was relatively well-acted and included valuable themes of value and hope.  What's more, Hugo even referenced classical cinema in a way that provided a veritable cornucopia of film history.  (A Trip to the Moon!  In a children's film!)

All of this sounds like it's right up my alley, doesn't it?  And yet, bored.

For me, this begs the question of 'why?'  After much thought--and yes, I spent time investigating why I didn't like a movie--I think I've come to an answer.

I felt like I'd been lied to.

To digest the promotional materials for the film, Hugo is billed as a wild ride into whimsy yet what the we're given is actually quite different.  For example, take a moment and compare the one-sheet posters for Hugo and newest vision for The Adventures of TinTin.  Although they maintain different content, I would argue that the visuals in both scenes are virtually identical in tone.  In all seriousness, this type of advertising does not do Hugo justice.  The film is not the adventure that is sold to us.  In fact, it's more of a character study.  There's a depth to the piece here that puts the film far above Arthur Christmas.

They sell you Narnia but, in actuality, you buy a Dickens novel.

Interestingly, I can't really blame the marketing campaign either.  They're simply trying to give the film as general an appeal as possible.  It's their job to make money and movies like Hugo are a pretty tough sell to the general public.  Usually, I'm fairly self-aware of these things.  They just simply caught me off guard this time.  (Besides, the last thing that I want is to come across as this person...)

Nevertheless, in light of this, I found myself wrestling with the issue of expectation and preparation.  In truth, we do prepare ourselves for a film before the lights dim and camera rolls.  If we're viewing a serious drama, we anticipate experiencing the film differently than if we were seeing, say, anything with Tom Cruise.  Further, there are also many factors that play into our enjoyment of a particular film as well.  Issues such as stress, exhaustion, personal interests or even motivation for seeing a certain film all play a role in whether or not we can engage a film properly.  Heck, even distractions in a theatre can ruin a film experience.  (Bah!  Cell phones!)  In fact, if you were to be totally honest with yourself, you might admit that--most of the time--you have already decided whether or not you'll like a film at all before you watch it anyways.  (Incidentally, Greg Wright has some good insight into this idea in his recent review of 'The Help'.  You can read it here if you're interested.)  Regardless of the issue at hand, our movie experiences do not exist in a vacuum.

Ironically, I find that this is also the case with Sunday morning services as well.

Now, obviously, I'm not really comparing a worship service with attending the Cineplex--at least practically speaking anyways.  They both serve different purposes in our daily experience.  Nonetheless, when you think about it, it's not really that big of a stretch in the context of this conversation, especially in the North American church.  For instance, in our culture, attending a Sunday morning service really isn't that different from going to the theatre.  (Maybe that's why so many churches thrive in theatres?)  For instance, in both scenarios, you come and sit down with people that you may or may not know, stare at the front and are encouraged to digest what is presented to you.  Good churches try to break out of this mould and engage the people more directly... but, in our culture, its not all that common.

With this in mind, I have heard (and stated) many arguments as to why someone (myself?) does not get anything out of a time of worship.  Like going to see a film, I believe that there is definitely responsibility that lands on the leaders of the church to create an environment that is conducive to engaging God and one another.  This includes worship that draws people to the heart of God, a sermon that challenges the hearts, lives and theology of the people and a community which supports, engages and cares for one another in a way that exemplifies God's presence.  These are absolutely essential to meet people where they are and invite them to a deeper faith journey.

But it doesn't end there.

I do believe that there is something to be said for our own preparation and motivation on a Sunday morning as well.  It is true that responsibility lies on the church for what is presented... but, like my experience in Hugo, my own issues and preparation affect how I engage the worship.  Again, stress, exhaustion, motivation... all of these are things that we bring into church on a Sunday morning.  We can't avoid them.  They're part of our lives.

Still, if we are largely unaware of these things, we risk missing out on what God has for us in these moments. In an echo of our experience with the arts, worship requires a heart of openness and intent to engage in the moment.  It requires a willingness to own our distracted and sinful hearts and allow ourselves the freedom to offer them to God so that we might be made new by meeting with Him.  It is one thing to be aware of these outside factors and release them.  It is quite another to hold onto them in a way that allows them to shape our experience of God.  As such, if we can allow God to help us move beyond these barriers, connecting in a worship service can provide opportunities for us to be spoken to in a way that leaves us unsettled.

It's in these moments when we can be shaped.

It's in these moments that we meet God.

So, as we ingest a film, book, song, or sermon for that matter, we must be aware of the factors that shape us in that moment.  If left unchecked, these issues can prevent us from connecting with the text in a way that impacts us.  Maybe Hugo deserves a second viewing.  Maybe it doesn't.  Either way, I'll never know what God may/may not have had for me in that theatre that night.

And, as an avid believer that God speaks actively to us in all forms of media, that is the real disappointment.

Something New...

I have some very exciting news to report to you all.  (Both?  lol)  After speaking with their online editor, I have been added as a volunteer staff member over at Hollywood Jesus.

In case you haven't heard of them before, Hollywood Jesus is a website devoted to examining pop culture from a spiritual point of view.

Sound familiar?

Active for 13 years now, Hollywood Jesus has many people on their staff -- I estimate about 80? -- and exists primarily online.  I have been told that, on the whole, the site receives roughly 60 000 hits a week.  Reviews and comments vary widely, both in content and style.  I have kept an eye on their site for several years and respect what they are attempting to do.  Their staff discuss all sorts of media, ranging from movies to video games.  I will be contributing to them on a monthly basis with film reviews and other stuff.  

So, what of Movio Dei?

I assure you that my blog will continue to go forward.  I haven't quite figured out what that means yet (i.e. whether I write only film reviews for HJ and other things here) but I will let you know.  As for now, I'm working on my next review and (at least for this one) probably post it to both sites.

I would appreciate prayer as God opens this new door for me.

It's nice to know there are others like us out there.

TIFFology 103: Further Thoughts and a New Hope...

As September slips into October, TIFF is starting to fade into a distant memory for this year.


Nevertheless, I do feel that one more reflection is appropriate.  I've enjoyed doing these too much and still have more to say to keep from one final shot.  I guess that's what happens when you see six movies in one week.  Man, does God do some serious mashups...


Besides, what would a movie blog be without a trilogy?  Hopefully the third one won't be a mass disappointment, ruining the effort of the first two.  (I'm looking at you, Matrix Revolutions...)


An additional theme to emerge from my experience at TIFF 2011 was that love is the ultimate impulse.  Within our culture, it's clear that the driving force behind much of life's decisions is determined by our relationships with one another and the world.  Our experience of love (or lack thereof) shapes our view of the world and influences the way that we interact within it.  In light of this, the best example of love's influence comes through the story of Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) in Marc Forster's Machine Gun Preacher.  Based on a true story, Machine Gun Preacher follows Childers' journey from drug dealer to born-again Christian.  Soon after accepting Christ, Childers opts to participate in a service trip to the Sudan where he witnesses first-hand the horrors of a country torn apart by civil war and violence.  His heart broken for the plight of these families, Childers decides to build an orphanage as a refuge for child soldiers.  Despite the fact that he is the target of violent attacks of the opposition, Childers' love for the children calls him to remain dedicated in his desire for justice and protection for these people.  Further, this commitment to justice is a complete turnaround for him.  Having once thought only of himself, Childers has now had his world reshaped by Christ's love in such a way that he is compelled to sacrifice his wants for the benefit of others.  He understands that his actions are seen as a threat to the status quo.  For example, when confronted with the fact that his actions are making him a target, he responds by arguing that "[he] must be doing something right then."  Still, he remains steadfast in his 'calling from God'.  In essence, Childers' experience of love then becomes the primary motivator for his expression thereof.


Interestingly, however, the story really gains its narrative tension from the division between Childers' two worlds:  his American home life and his Sudanese orphanage.  It is within this dichotomy that Preacher really grapples with the imbalance that can occur when love becomes obsession.  [POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT]  In other words, as Childers first embarks upon his mission to rescue child soldiers, he is driven by love for their safety and well-being.  What's more, he also manages to balance this love of justice while fully offering his heart to his wife and daughter back in the US.  Nevertheless, as his heart is slowly broken down by the ravages of war, Childers becomes filled with anger, causing him to increasingly disengage from his family while obsessing endlessly about his personal war.  [SPOILERS DONE]  In this case, the impulse of love moves from a call to health and healing to the driving force for destruction.  Although still technically Childers' primary motivator, his commitment to love is tainted by rage, creating a darker, more ferocious heart within him.


This darker side to love leads us quickly into the idea that, within our culture, true honour is morally grey.  A theme like this permeates much of popular culture these days, especially within television and film narratives.  Much is rationalized in the name of love.  An excellent example of this comes through Nicholas Winding Refn's gritty crime drama, Drive.  Here, Ryan Gosling plays a nameless character (simply known as 'Driver') who works as a stunt driver by day while moonlighting as a getaway car driver at night.  His existence is a quiet one that operates with few attachments, keeping relatively off the grid.  Nevertheless, his world quickly changes after connecting with a young family who live down the hall.  As his relationship with the family--including the beautiful young mother, Irene (Carey Mulligan)--deepens, Gosling soon becomes involved with some former mob ties that still haunt the family and chooses to fight in an effort to free his friends from their past.  This particular film is interesting insofar as the clear heart of love that beats within Gosling's character is offset by the extremes that he is willing to go in terms of violence.  In an interview, Refn described his protagonist as 'part man, part machine'.  After seeing the film, I truly don't really know how else to describe it.  Gosling's 'Driver' is clearly a damaged soul who appears to find wholeness in the love of this family.  Nonetheless, this desire to protect also awakens a roaring lion inside of him that operates without restraint when the need arises.  [SPOILER ALERT] Interestingly, although Irene initially objects to this type of violence, even she cannot help but be thankful for the liberty that comes as a result.  [SPOILERS DONE]  Without question, this is a clear example of the 'ends justifying the means'.  Viciously stomping skulls or nailing bullets into foreheads means little to Gosling if it provides freedom to those he loves in the end.  Because his intentions are honourable, his actions must be as well.


Interestingly, this viewpoint also permeates Machine Gun Preacher as well.  Like Gosling in Drive, Childers is a man divided (albeit much less composed).  As he grapples with the horrors of life in the Sudan, there is no doubt that Childers wants peace and justice... however, he also believes that taking action is the best way to get it.  In short, he simply sees no other option.  Every time that he straps on assault weapons to fight the resistance army, he is fully aware of the controversial nature of his methods.  When confronted by another aid worker about his use of weapons, Childers growls, "Why don't you fight the evil in this place your way and let me fight it mine?"  What's even more fascinating to me is that, for the majority of the film, we, as the audience, sympathize with him.  Although there are moments towards the end when we can see that his behaviour is going too far, much of the narrative is spent from Childers' perspective.  As such, we journey with him as the viewers, all the while torn between the method and the motivation.


Moreover, it is in the midst of stories like these that we must ask ourselves where the Gospel permeates.  There is no question that the Gospel offers hope and freedom to the oppressed.  Out of our experience with Christ and motivated by love, we, as believers, are called to exhibit these qualities and call for justice in our world today.


Few would argue this truth.


Things get complicated, however, when one engages discussion as to how that freedom should be brought about.  In a scene during the closing credits of Preacher, the real Sam Childers asks a simple question:  "If one of your children were taken and I said I could bring them home, would you care how I did it?"  As a believer and, not to mention, as a parent, it's a question that I cannot easily answer.  Must peaceful action and violence be mutually exclusive if they are motivated by love?  Films like Drive and Machine Gun Preach thrive within this tension.  (Incidentally, this tension is even evident within Preacher's print ad campaign.  Witness the differences between the first promotional poster and the second one-sheet.  It's staggering.)


In response to this, I believe that much of this discussion stems from a quest for hope.  Whether one takes a violent approach to seeking justice or whether they opt for a more peaceful recourse, one's actions often stem from their belief in the root of hope.  Does God really take an active role in the world or is it really just up to us to make things happen? 


To attempt to answer this, I would argue that the larger question in films like these is whether or not genuine hope actually exists.  


Cue John Williams score... now.

The search for hope is ubiquitous in all of the films that I took in at this year's festival, each with their own questions and answers.  Whereas Drive offers hope through taking matters into one's own hands, a film like Jeff, Who Lives At Home believes that it comes from outside of ourselves, as if we're part of some greater plan of which we are unaware.  While From the Sky Down finds hope in community that is united by the Spirit of God, Anonymous focuses its hope on human freedom and creativity.  Interestingly, both Machine Gun Preacher and Martha Marcy May Marlene end open-endedly on their quest for hope.  However, it is also intriguing to note that, while Preacher celebrates Childers dedication as a source of hope, Martha Marcy leaves us with an overwhelming sense of fear and hopelessness.  (This dichotomy is further echoed in the promotional materials as well.  For instance, although Machine Gun Preacher's poster carries the message that "Hope is the greatest weapon of all", Martha Marcy offers no such platitudes or taglines, implying that there's no easy answer.)

As a believer, this quest for a new hope draws me back to our Creator for answers.  There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus Christ speaks to each of these issues, calling us back to wholeness and restoration in Him.  Though we might not always agree on how it manifests itself, there is no question that the truth of the Gospel does offer freedom to the broken and oppressed in a way that brings both healing and hope.  The movement of God towards His people reveals the depth of His love for us in ways that reshape us in such a manner that we are prepared to grapple with issues like honour and justice from His perspective.

As a result, love really does become the ultimate motivation after all.

TIFFology 102: Martha Marcy Edition

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Starring Elizabeth Olsen, John Hawkes                                                   By Steve Norton

Rated R for thematic content, language and brief nudity            Rating: ****1/2 (out of 5)
In Theaters Friday, October 23rd, 2011

As I continue to debrief my experience at TIFF, I keep coming back to one specific film.  I have been able to link it with other films and deconstruct it from that perspective but, to be honest, that wouldn't do this particular film justice.  My experience of this film was one of emotional horror.  It left me feeling disturbed to my very core and was one of those rare occasions when I simply did not know how to deal with what I had just seen.

It’s excellent.

The film was Martha Marcy May Marlene.

Martha Marcy opens as a young girl named Martha (Elizabeth Olsen, in one of the best performances I have ever seen) escapes from a cult in the Catskill Mountains.  Searching for safety, she reaches out to her sister and brother-in-law—the only family that she has left—to take her in.  Upon Martha’s arrival, her sister slowly begins to notice distinct differences in her sister’s behaviour, ranging from her comments about being a ‘teacher and a leader’ to skinny-dipping publicly in broad daylight.  From there, the film unfolds in a skewed timeline that ebbs and flows between reality and flashback (or is it a dream?).  The film masterfully contrasts Martha’s seemingly bizarre behaviour with her family while, at the same time, slowly revealing to us the horrors that took place in the commune under the influence of their charismatic leader, Patrick (John Hawkes).

Since viewing this film, I have not been able to escape the vision of the depth of damage incurred by sin at the Fall.  The best illustration of this comes through the journey Martha takes in her relationship with Patrick.  For instance, when Martha first meets Patrick, he carries himself with incredible charm.  In a conversation that is eerily reminiscent of the Serpent’s exchange with Eve in Genesis 3, Patrick promises much to his young inductee and welcomes her to the commune with humility and openness, explaining that ‘it’s as much yours as it is mine’.  The interesting thing is that Patrick’s teachings even appear to make sense.  He seamlessly blends truth and lies together in the pseudo-spiritual advice he offers to his new recruit, inviting her to ‘let her guard down [because they] want to help…” and teaching her that, despite their poverty, they are ‘in need of nothing’.  In Patrick, Martha finds an escape from her life and potential hope for a future.  He even refuses to call her by her given name, stating she ‘looks like a Marcy May’ (a metaphor used by the film to show the death of her old self). 

Nevertheless, similar to the Genesis account of the Fall, Martha’s (or is it Marcy May?) openness to Patrick’s teaching causes her to suffer her own fall from grace.  As a result, she gradually loses her sense of self, becoming the very ‘picture on the wall’ about which Patrick sings.  Martha Marcy May Marlene is a haunting vision of the devastation that occurs when one allows themselves to be seduced by skewered visions of love and wholeness.  Martha’s openness to life with Patrick may have begun as a desire for a fresh start but it ends up reshaping her life and worldview in a way that leaves her barely recognizable to her family.  (Even the film’s poster—a giant ‘M’ with Olsen’s picture behind it—suggests that Martha has found herself imprisoned by her experience.  You can see the ad here.)  In other words, like Adam and Eve’s experience in the Garden, Martha’s desire for something better than what she had leads her into world of brokenness and disarray far worse than she could have imagined.

Furthermore, this film really also speaks to the depth of one’s story.  This idea is best brought forward through Martha’s relationship with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), and brother-in-law Ted (Hugh Dancy).  Having been absent from their lives for two years, Martha’s reappearance causes a great deal of tension within the family unit. To her sister, she’s still a child; to her workaholic brother-in-law, she’s an annoyance.  In fact, perhaps the most frustrating thing about this film is the manner in which her family deals with the ‘new’ Martha.  Ted exists in his own world, focusing primarily on himself.  His intent is to enjoy the time (and money) that he’s earned and consistently complains about Martha’s imposition on his vacation that ‘he only gets two weeks a year’ to utilize.  On the other hand, while Lucy’s engagement with her sister is far more sensitive, it still falls short of truly being able to help.  Rather than inquire of and listen patiently to her sister’s story, Lucy makes assumptions about Martha’s relationship with Patrick and writes off the experience as having to do with ‘some boyfriend up in the Catskills’.  As a result, both she and Patrick appear consumed with curbing her behaviour so that she can function socially.  In truth, however, Martha’s story has been damaged so deeply that merely attempting to acclimatize her actions is only a Band-Aid solution at best. What does a moment like this mean to us as Christians?  Interestingly, it is also here that the nature of the Gospel is at it’s most relevant.  As Christ speaks grace and truth into the hearts of the broken, he offers restoration at the very deepest parts of our souls.  However, the attitude exhibited by Martha’s family actually prevents her from experiencing genuine, God-filled healing by focusing on her behaviour instead of connecting her heart with the Spirit of Christ.  In short, Martha doesn’t need to be ‘fixed’.  She needs to experience healing—and that can only begin once you get to the very heart of her story and meet her there with grace.

The truth about Martha Marcy May Marlene is that it genuinely reflects the effects of our own fallenness.  Similar to the events of Genesis 3, Martha’s journey illustrates the reality of the shattering of our own wholeness.  Furthermore, the brokenness of her story pleads for someone to offer her freedom and restoration.

Which is also the very point where the Gospel needs to intersect.

TIFFology 101: God Creates...

As much as it breaks my heart, another edition of the Toronto International Film Festival has come and gone.

I certainly feel as though I got the most out of the experience.  As has become my tradition, I took in multiple films with multiple people which, to me, adds to the week.  Honestly, the movies are great... but the discussion afterwards is what puts this over the top for me.  Without the interaction, so much gets left in the theatre... but with it?  That's when God really opens up space for spiritual challenge and shaping.  Thanks to everyone who came with me.

Sometimes, when it comes to picking films, it really does seem like you're throwing darts at a dart board.  With so many films to choose from, you never really know what you're going to experience at TIFF.  Add in the fact that there wasn't a whole lot of Oscar buzz beforehand this year--unless your name is Clooney--and selecting one's schedule can create wild picks and combinations.  Still, I'm constantly amazed that God seems to use these experiences and, as a result, themes/issues are mashed up in ways that I would never have expected.

So, with that in mind, I think it would be worthwhile to collect my thoughts and speak to the issues that I grappled with in this year's edition of TIFF...

Better get comfortable.  

This may take a while.  (In fact, it'll likely take several blog posts...)

To get us started, one key theme that emerged from TIFF this year for me is that the creative impulse comes from God.  This 'inspiration from the Divine' was most evident to me in Davis Guggenheim's U2 documentary, From the Sky Down.  Rather than attempt to tell the story of the band's entire 36 year history, Guggenheim opts to take a more focused look at the creation of their album Achtung Baby (1991) and the early years of the band leading up to it.  Choosing to tell the story in this way frees Guggenheim to really focus on the creative process and explore the psychology of the members of the band during Achtung's inception.  It's here that From the Sky Down becomes most poignant.  Bono refers several times to the Spirit that descends when music is brought to life.  As he describes the creative experience, he recalls that, "when the Spirit is in the room, you know it." To Bono, the music comes from another place and the effect is Divine in nature.  (Even the film's title, From the Sky Down, speaks to the band's belief that their inspiration descends upon them from a more spiritual place.)  Although Guggenheim doesn't directly speak to the creative power of God, there is little doubt that Bono et al. believe that He is present in their artistic expression.  Through moments like the creation of "One", the band speaks to how the development of their music comes from somewhere else, as if they are merely the vessels through which it is released.  

What I didn't expect, however, was that this theme of the Divine nature of the arts also came through the character of the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) in Roland Emmerich's Anonymous.  In Anonymous, Emmerich explores the theory that Shakespeare was incapable of having written any of the works credited to him because he was likely functionally illiterate due to his lack of social status.  Instead, the film suggests that Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is in fact responsible for such works as Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet.  In addition, however, the film also suggests that there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the arts at this time, ironically stemming from the Church and issues of social status.  (After all, the arts were 'for the peasants'.)  In an effort to refrain from spoilers, I can say that, under these circumstances, DeVere is under tremendous pressure to distance himself from his writings and offers his works to another to claim as their own.  Interestingly though, he cannot fully separate himself from his artistic expression.  Although there are some members of the Church who oppose the arts (claiming that it leads to fornication and debauchery), it is interesting that the vast majority of people believe that it's a powerful art form.  In fact, DeVere even states that he cannot stop writing because he has all these stories and characters in his head that need to be put to paper.  "Only then," he claims, "do I have peace."  For DeVere, to create art is to bring to life what has been given to him.  It's not a hobby.  It's a spiritual experience.  Like Bono argues, it's from somewhere else:  a gift from God.

In both of these cases, the reality of God's involvement in the arts is significant and shines through beautifully.  That is not to say that all art glorifies God.  That would be naive.  However, I would suggest--as I have before--that the very fact that we have the ability to create is an expression if the imago Dei (image of God) that He instilled in us at our creation.  Further, as has so often has been the case in my own life, there is always something spiritual that can be grappled with in the arts, be it film, music or other areas.  God cares about the arts... and plays a starring role in its inception.

Interestingly enough, mixed in with these ideas comes the notion that God speaks into our world today. In particular, this message becomes most clear through the Duplass Brothers' comedy Jeff, Who Lives at Home.  This film focuses on the story of Jeff (Jason Segel), a 30-year-old man who lives in his mother's basement.  With no job and no prospects, Jeff spends his days smoking pot and looking for signs from 'the Universe' to lead him forward.  Similar to Bono's understanding of the Spirit's role in creativity, Jeff is a firm believer that we can have a connection to something larger than ourselves.  The best example of this comes in the film's opening moments when Jeff receives a phone call for someone named Kevin.  Because he doesn't know anyone by that name, he assumes that the sheer oddity of the situation must carry with it special significance.  You see, for Jeff, purpose and fulfillment can be found only when one is willing to follow when the universe calls (or, in this case, dials a wrong number).  Thus, Jeff sets off on a journey to discover the meaning of the mysterious connection between himself and 'Kevin'.

Ironically, despite the fact that his character is the least successful and has the least amount to 'show for' his life, Jeff is also the only one who appears to be even remotely satisfied with his existence.  Sure, he's looking for the 'missing piece' to his humanity... but he realizes that it lies outside of himself and what the world has to offer.  Similar to both Bono and DeVere, when the Universe (or 'Spirit', for our purposes) is in the room, you need to pay attention.  What's more, this theology is actually jarring to his materialistic brother (Ed Helms) and socially-imprisoned mother (Susan Sarandon), who both want him to 'get his act together'.  However, by contrasting the pseudo-spiritual Jeff with the emptiness experienced by the rest of his family, the film invites the viewer to explore the very motivations that our society bases itself upon.  Sure, Jeff is a loser by society's standards... but he's also the closest to a sense of peace and spiritual meaning.

Without naming him as such, Jeff understands that it is God who speaks something new into the world.  Something impregnated with the ability to bring new life and wholeness to the troubled soul.

Still, today, God creates.

And, like both Bono and DeVere, he knows that it means something.

The Challenge of Christian-Directed Media

Recently, I had the opportunity to journey with our pastoral staff to a conference at a well-known Christian college in Chicago, IL.  While I was there, they of course invited numerous Christian companies to set up information booths in their facility, ranging from church planting materials to web hosts.  There are always several booths that catch my eye (though really I trek through the stuff for the free T-shirt at the back of the building... lol).  Though, this year, there was one particular booth that really grabbed my attention.

It was a company called 'Pure Flix'.

You can imagine my interest at a Christian company that seeks to make family-friendly movies.  Still though, I remained a bit at a distance.  (I don't really like engaging people at these booths right away until I know what I want to ask them specifically.)  Nevertheless, our Sr. Pastor was with me and he began to ask questions.

The conversation was intriguing.  

The guy was nice enough.  He demonstrated a heart for the Lord and a desire to create safe, family-friendly movies that anyone could enjoy.

Then he said something that I won't soon forget.

He said that their hope was to 'eliminate the need for Hollywood'.

Now, there are several observations that a statement like this demands.  First, let me say that I'm sure I understood what he meant.  His intent was to say that their hope was that Christian families would find an alternative to the Hollywood influx for their homes.  For most conservative Christians, this seems like a logical and heartfelt statement, designed to encourage healthy viewing habits.

It's hard to fault a guy for that, really.

Still, his statement also makes several assumptions.  For example, it assumes that the content determines whether or not a film is of spiritual value.  In previous posts, I've indicated my position on this.  Personally, I believe that there is incredible value in the thematic impact of film that can transcend content at times.  Of course, we are accountable for what we intake, be it sex, language, violence, etc.  We must take responsibility for our viewing and understand that it can shape us if we remain disengaged.  Nevertheless, to suggest that Hollywood has no value is to negate the fact that God is already at work in the world.  Although I think that it is fair to say that Hollywood's primary interest is in making money and selling a product, there is no doubt to me that there is evidence of God's Kingdom breaking through the darkness.  Movies like X2: X-men United, Of Gods and Men (a French movie -- it's on iTunes.  See it.  See it now.), The King's Speech, or even pretty much any Pixar movie, offer insights into our world and its questions (and answers).  Hollywood films can offer hope or report cultural hopelessness... but they always share something.  This realization also acknowledges that God is moving.  Using people that have yet to open their hearts to Him personally often means that the manner in which it is expressed may be a way that makes the Church uncomfortable.  Nevertheless, as Christians, we understand our culture through a certain lens or worldview as well.  Is it not our responsibility to proclaim the truths of Christ wherever we see them... even if it comes through the mantras of Forrest Gump or the devastation inherent within the duality of Black Swan?  What better way to point people to Christ than to look for Him within their own expressions of life and point out the reality of God's hope for humanity?

Another assumption is that they are offering a valid alternative to Hollywood.  Listen, I'm a strong supporter of Christians in the media.  Still, the reality is that the vast majority of "Christian movies" simply aren't good.  I wish they were... but they're not.  I have found that, in their effort to get their point across or maintain standards of content, most Christian-focused films come off as overly simplistic, preachy or unrealistic.  A great example of this comes through my experience of Fireproof, starring Kirk Cameron, a mega-hit by Christian production standards to be sure (if measured by box-office).  I saw Fireproof well before its release (ironically, at the same conference) and felt it was a pretty good portrayal of current Christian issues related to marriage.  Moreover, it was actually funny when it was supposed to be and had legitimately tense scenes.  Still though, I felt it lacked the complexity and realism of other mainstream films that try to deal with the same issue.  In one particular scene, as Cameron's character berates his wife over nothing, I found myself thinking that it needed something.

It needed swearing.

This was a strange moment for me, especially given that I have never argued for less 'purity' in a film.  Still, it emphasized a point to me.  I felt that, in their effort to stay clean, the writers actually sacrificed some realism and softened the blow.  One could even argue that it would have worked story-wise due to the fact that their family were not yet Christians.  Still, nothing.  Personally, on this level, I found a film like The Freebie, a little indie film about the perils of infidelity to be a better exploration of the virtues of marriage, despite the language.  (Seriously.  It's not the silly film that they tried to sell it as.)  In many ways, 'Christian films' create for themselves their own rules and, as a result, end up walking away from the very truths of healing and transformation of which Christ speaks.  I admire what the people at Sherwood Pictures are doing (after all, they are a church making major films) but I feel like they're off the mark in this area.  Clean cut is... nice... but it doesn't always connect with the reality that we live in.

Lastly, to create an alternative to Hollywood may seem like a noble goal to some.  After all, the thinking is clear:  "If we could just control the content, we could reach the world..."  The problem is that this simply doesn't work.  First of all, Christian movies rarely reach anyone outside of Christian circles so, as an evangelism tool, they just aren't effective.  Second, and most importantly, is that really how we want the world to know us?  (I think there's a song about that.  "They will know that we are Christians from our poorly made films..."  Something like that.)  The truth is that God calls us to engage culture; to be a light in the dark.   If we truly seek to impact the world, it's far more effective to be a Christian working in the film industry than to create a separate industry that simply tries to compete--and poorly, I might add.  Hollywood Christians (yes, there are others that don't have the last name Cameron) like Denzel Washington, Tyler Perry, Kristin Chenowith, Philip Anschlutz, Zachary Levi and Ralph Winter are making a difference by creating engaging films or taking roles that emphasize the values of Christ, albeit in non-traditional ways. The list goes on and on.  People such as these need prayer and encouragement as they continue to impact an industry that is a major influence on the world.  After all, Christ truly calls us as believers into the world to allow the Holy Spirit to shine through us.  We can't do that if we separate ourselves and shine our light from across the street.

So, in closing, I truly don't mean to judge the people at Pure Flix (or other ministries like it).  I believe that they really do have good intentions and hearts that love the Lord.  However, in all honesty, I just feel that the realm of 'Christian films' is in itself problematic.  By limiting their view of God's work in the world and sacrificing the quality of their storytelling, 'Christian films' usually ends up missing the very mark that they set out to achieve.  (Even the fact that we call them 'Christian movies' seems to set them apart from mainstream films in a way that carries a negative stigma.)  We know that Christ calls us to engage our culture from within it so that we can exhibit His character in an active and real manner.

So, let's tell stories that do that.

Please?

Thor

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman            By Steve Norton

Rated PG                                                                        Rating: *** (out of 5)

The superhero genre is an interesting one.

Once written off as sheer frivolity and escapism, the superhero film has received a great deal of respect over the last 10 years or so.  Attracting A-List actors and directors—heck, even Thor has 2 Oscar winners in Hopkins and Portman—and often attempting to deal with their subject matter in a mature tone, the superhero film has become a fascinating (and safe?) place to discuss issues that matter in the larger society.  For example, while X2: X-men United wrestles with the challenges of homosexuals, The Dark Knight examines the ineffectiveness of hard-line morality.  In fact, the prevalence of the genre in the last decade has caused people to refer to this as “The Golden Age of Superhero Films’.  Yes, the quality of the films differs wildly – films like Daredevil and Ghost Rider should never even be mentioned in the same sentence as Nolan’s brilliant The Dark Knight – and they seem to be starting to wear out their welcome at the box office a little bit in recent years.  (Surely, the upcoming The Avengers in 2012 must be some sort of climax to it all.  We’ll see.)  Still, there is something about superhero films that connects with our culture today in a way that keeps getting us to shell out our money.

Which brings us to Thor.

A relatively secondary character in the Marvel universe, Thor is the Norse god of Thunder.  Living in Asgaard, a heavenly region in another realm in the universe, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is next in line for the throne as King, currently held by his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins).  However, due to Thor’s impatience and immaturity, as well as some politically-motivated manipulation from his brother, Loki (Tom Middleton), he is deemed unworthy to become king at this time.  As a result, Thor is banished to Earth in order to ‘understand the value of life’.  Through his subsequent journey, including his new relationships with a group of human research scientists (Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Denning), Thor is challenged to rethink his place in the universe and the true meaning of honour.

Theologically speaking, it’s easy to argue for the incarnation here.  After all, the film tells the story of a god who is sent to Earth, taking the form of man, in an effort to learn what the human experience is like.  [SPOILER ALERT]  Ultimately, Thor even offers his life as a sacrifice on their behalf, eventually being resurrected by His Father! [SPOILERS OVER]  However, to be honest, the notion that interested me far more than this is the idea of the value of one’s journey.  In an odd way, Thor’s journey is a great example of our own as he becomes shaped by his experiences.  At the same time though, Thor’s journey is strangely guided through his interaction with the divine.  For instance, Thor’s human experience begins because Odin desires for him to understand the value of life and wisdom.  Further, Thor learns true humility and brokenness through suffering because of the manipulative lies of his brother, Loki.  Because of these connections with the divine, Thor’s entire self is reborn from one of self-glorification to one of love and wholeness.  How different is this from our own Christian journeys as we are shaped by our own engagement with God—and the experiences of suffering and injustice.  Nevertheless, as with Thor, the nature of our response to these moments determines much when it comes to our opportunity to grow and be reshaped into the image of God.  Our lives are in constant interaction with the Divine, whether we realize it or not.  The fact that Jesus Christ seeks to open our eyes to this truth is one of the key goals of His mission.  It is His desire for us to see the world and our lives through His eyes.  Our journey is always under His watch.  It’s the openness of our hearts that allows Him the opportunity to engage and reshape us.

Similar to this, I also found that Thor wrestled with the truth of myth.  ‘Myth’ is a tricky word to use when one talks about spiritual issues.  A lot of people get uncomfortable and instantly think of nursery rhymes or the Brothers Grimm. Although there are a great many ‘myths’ that are fictitious, the term is really referring to epic tales of man’s interactions with the Divine.  As a result, many Christians typically become anxious when ‘myth’ is applied to ideas such as Scriptural narrative or Biblical truth.  Despite the fact that it is always wise to be cautious, in this case, it is unnecessary.  For instance, in the case of Thor, this particular use of the term is really very flattering to Christian ideology. This idea is shown most effectively through the journey of Jane and her research partners.  Engrossed in the practices of the scientific method, Jane and her co-workers are suddenly thrust into a world that, really, makes no sense to them.  As scientists, their understanding of the universe is literal, quantifiable and explainable yet Thor describes himself as having “come from a place where [science and magic] are one in the same.”  Perhaps the best line to describe this struggle comes when Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Jane Foster (Portman) are discussing some of the places that Thor described.  Here, Selvig resists Jane’s descriptions of Asgaard and the Mjolnir, claiming to have heard all these bedtime stories growing up.  However, as they continue to experience life with Thor, they are compelled to believe in the reality of mythology that they refuse to accept.  (At one point, Selvig even discovers a book on Nordic mythology and begins to read it, looking for answers.)  How true a situation is this for those of us who cling to the authenticity of the Word of God?  On the surface, we read these wild stories of God’s interaction with man, wrestling with the questions as bedtime story vs. historical events.  Nonetheless, our experience of the Kingdom stems from our ability to accept the authenticity of these stories of myth and ‘magic’.  It is often our understanding of the Scriptures that most shapes our view of God and the genuine nature of our experience of Him in the world.  Thor as a character understood this fact… though we have a hard time accepting it in the ‘real world’.

All in all, Thor is a difficult film to make, especially since Marvel has taken pride in its ability to make its heroes both realistic and relatable to the general public.  Still, on the back of Branaugh’s direction and Hemsworth’s charm, I found it enjoyable.  (Not their best, to be sure but certainly not their worst by any stretch.  DarkHorizons.com argued that it was on par with The Incredible Hulk.  I would agree with that assessment.)  More importantly, however, I believe that Thor has much to talk about in the way of our own spiritual journeys and our engagement with Divine storytelling.  In a strange metaphor, I found that the experience of the Norse god parallels and intersects the Christian walk in a way that allows us the freedom to engage our own stories as well.

The King's Speech

Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush                                                By Steve Norton

Rated PG-13                                                                                    Rating: **** (out of 5)

Available on Blu-ray and DVD           

Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan.  Crash vs. Brokeback Mountain.

            Without a doubt, these were viewed as some of the most controversial Oscar races in recent memory.  At least until this year, when The King’s Speech overtook The Social Network for Best Picture at the 2011 Oscars.

            It’s a shame, really.  In a lot of ways, it ties the films together in a way that they don’t deserve.  They’re both excellent films and speak to different audiences. Still, the debate was quite polarizing.  I’d even heard one friend of mine make the claim that King’s Speech was ‘one of the best films ever made’ and that Social Network was only about “selfish, arrogant, egotistical, horny college students trying to one up each other”.  (While there is a grain of truth in a literal approach like that, I still feel it largely misses the bigger picture.)  Its interesting too because, in many ways, there are stark similarities between the two films:  both revolve around the effects of technological advances, both focus on communication to a larger culture and both focus on the challenges of men who wish to prove their worth to the world.   (Although, surprisingly, Spielberg’s Oscar presentation speech did seem to make a lot of this tension dissipate by acknowledging the quality of both films.  You can hear it here.)

            That having been said, let’s talk about The King’s Speech specifically.  Taking place in 1930s England, Speech tells the story of Prince Albert (Colin Firth), the Duke of York, as he battles a terrible stutter that has plagued him since childhood.  After trying many treatments to no avail, Albert is introduced to Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an unorthodox speech therapist from Australia.   (Spoiler Alert—although, not really when you know the title…)  As Logue’s techniques begin to yield some results, Albert suddenly ascends to the throne (taking the name King George VI) and must communicate with the nation as their leader.  Hence, he is forced to grapple with his stutter and its roots.  This is an exceptional piece about the triumph of the human spirit—which is no doubt why it was such a crowd pleaser.  Moreover, and as always, I feel that there are much deeper spiritual investigations for our purposes here.

            Although an analysis of this film could be approached from any number of angles, I have chosen to examine the fact that The King’s Speech speaks to the healing power of God-centred community.  For example, it is clear that this film seeks to suggest that strength is found by the quality of relationships that one keeps.  This is best demonstrated between the ever-deepening connection between Lionel and Albert.  Rather than use formal techniques, much of Lionel’s speech therapy relies heavily on understanding and caring for the whole self of his patient. He takes an interest in Albert’s personal life and history.  He challenges Albert to rethink his royal abilities.  He even refuses to refer to Albert as anything but ‘Bertie’ (a name which only ‘[his] family ever calls him’).  Having never really had anyone view him as an equal, this sort of interaction is initially jarring to Albert.  (In fact, when Lionel asks him “What are friends for?,” Albert can only reply he has  “…no idea.”)  However, as the relationship deepens, both men find themselves reshaped by the experience, bringing healing and wholeness into what was once the brokenness of their lives.  This sort of depiction of connection is an excellent picture of what happens when truly God-centered community is sought.  What’s more, the openness and vulnerability that God invites humanity into (both with Him and each other) becomes extremely counter-cultural when one considers that much of our current social climate is based solely on externals.  (This is also another area where King’s Speech begins to dialogue with The Social Network and the explosion of sites like Facebook or Twitter.)  Thus, as God invites humanity to participate in a community that exhibits Kingdom values of wholeness, we too are changed and may receive healing from hurts through the depth of our connections with Him and others.

            In addition, this theme of healing also reinforces the value of time, especially through the character of Lionel.  One of the key elements of Logue’s speech therapy is the understanding that this process would be long and the journey to healing arduous.  In his first meeting with Albert, Lionel makes it clear that they are going to meet every day.  In doing so, Lionel demonstrates his commitment to Albert’s well-being.  Further, as Lionel begins to pour himself into Albert, the two men begin a journey towards a new wholeness.  Here, the reality of true Kingdom ministry is made clear.  Although there are stories of men and women who immediately throw down that metaphorical (or literal) pack of cigarettes or whiskey bottle upon their first encounter with Christ, there are far more that demonstrate lives of ongoing challenge.  In other words, despite the fact that Christ brings about new life in a person, one’s spiritual journey is long and difficult and requires ongoing support in order for genuine life change to take effect.  As such, investment of time in someone’s life proves itself to be an invaluable practice and that level of commitment creates trust and a sense of safety in the other. These conditions provide the Spirit of God with a fertile soil within which genuine life change can take place.  (The old adage that ‘people aren’t projects’ is absolutely true.  I’ve seen it too many times to count in my years of youth ministry.)  In King’s Speech, Lionel exemplifies this truth and, as a result, Albert begins to experience new life on the other side of his affliction.  In the same way, investing time spiritually in another allows God space to move and, consequently, reaps rewards that may be difficult to see otherwise.

            All things considered, there is much to sink one’s theological teeth into when considering The King’s Speech.  Regardless of controversy—and whatever side of the argument one may fall—it is definitely a film of quality and depth.  Its discussion of wholeness and healing is an effective example of Kingdom values, creating a message that is badly needed in today’s society of ‘safe relationships’.

            But, seriously, The Social Network should have won.  ;)

Possible Divine or Dreadful Moments in Summer 2011

I don't care what the calendar says.  My summer starts the first weekend in May.

It's that weekend that the cineplex starts to make sense again.  January is a dreadful month--probably the worst of the year--for new releases... but no one notices because the Oscar films of December are usually still carrying over.  February usually is adequate but March and April are filled with posers--films that promise much and offer little.

But May?  Things start to happen again.

Now, I realize that 'promise much, offer little' can apply immensely more through the summer blockbuster season.  And, really, a lot of the summer films feel like they've had their plot written on the back of a cocktail napkin.  (Come on, Hollywood.  Just because it's hot out, it doesn't mean we get dumber...)

Nevertheless, things feel bigger this time of year, in a good way.  And people flock to the box office whether its good or not.  (In fact, really this is the time of year that studios hope to make back their losses on smaller films the rest of the year.)  

So, with all of this in mind, I thought it might be interesting to drop five films that are on my radar over the summer season (which, incidentally, generally extends from the 1st weekend of May to the 2nd weekend in August).  Obviously, I'm looking for different criteria than how much it will make and I offer no guarantees on content, rating or even whether these will be good.  Still, as I sort through the summer schedule, there are a few titles that stand out as having interesting theological discussion within them.  (There are others but I thought I'd stick with a short list.)

If we're all going to the theatre anyways, we should be sure to engage what God has for us during these experiences.

So, anyways, on with the list (in order of release):

Thor

Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman

May 6th, 2011

Hmmmmm... the story of a god who is sent by his father to live amongst the human race as one of them while serving as their protector against the dark forces of evil?  

Without knowing whether or not this film will even be entertaining, it certainly screams of the Incarnation from the very premise.  The superhero movie is a unique genre and has become a staple of the summer film season.  The quality ranges from the embarassingly awful (Daredevil; Ghost Rider) to the superb (The Dark Knight; X2: X-men United) and as a result, it's easy to tire of them.  (In fact, with no less than FOUR comic titles this summer--X-Men: First Class; Green Lantern; Captain America: The First Avenger in addition to this one--we're certainly saturated with them as moviegoers.)  Nevertheless, when done well, the superhero film genre has become more than just a popcorn flick and can be a powerful place to grapple with larger spiritual issues of faith, responsibility and self-sacrifice.  This could be an interesting look at incarnational living from a spiritual perspective.  

Although you've probably seen it--the promotional campaign has been far from subtle--the trailer is here.

Everything Must Go

Will Ferrell

May 6th, 2011

Ferrell is an interesting actor.  

Although he's known for his brash, loud humour, he has been known to switch gears to the drama.  Films like Stranger than Fiction and the little known Winter Passing show that he can effectively dial it down to portray the everyman.  Everything Must Go looks like it might have some interesting discussions as to what makes up humanity when everything is stripped away.  I'm not expecting an Oscar nomination by any stretch but I am curious as to what this particular dramatic turn by Ferrell has to offer in terms of discussion.

Tree of Life

Brad Pitt, Sean Penn 

May 27th, 2011?

Okay, no joke.  Watch the trailer.  You see if you can tell me what this movie's about... lol

In all seriousness, the story of this film is somewhat interesting.  Directed by Terrence Malick, this film has been delayed at least a year in distribution.  Why?  Because Malick decided it wasn't good enough.  Release dates have been set and still nothing.  However, it looks like the film will FINALLY be let out to open Cannes later next month.

Not much is known about this particular film but the description online is that it is a dramatic search for the truths of life by examining the family unit and creation itself.  This comment from the official description is particularly interesting to me, "Framing this story is that of adult Jack, a lost soul in a modern world, seeking to discover amid the changing scenes of time that which does not change: the eternal scheme of which we are a part. When he sees all that has gone into our world's preparation, each thing appears a miracle precious, incomparable."  Malick's work is always interesting (the guy's only directed 5 features in 40 years and yet everyone wants to work with him) so this could be a fascinating exploration of the nature of humanity, the world and the expression of our creative God within it.

Super 8

Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler

June 10th, 2011

I have to admit that J.J. Abrams gets a lot of geek love from me.  He's been firmly on my radar since Alias and, since that time, he has demonstrated his ability to produce, direct, and write both great action pieces and heartfelt stories.  This particular project is a really fascinating one to me.  His goal has been to create a film reminiscent of the old Amblin movies of the 80s such as E.T. and Goonies.  These films were always about more than simple sci-fi and were often associated with the term 'coming of age' film.  If the trailer is any indication, it appears that he's achieving that goal.  (I'm sure that the fact that Spielberg is producing helps as well...)  While clearly about the release of a captive alien of some type, the trailer also seems to indicate that the story will grapple with issues of family and, yes, 'coming of age'.

Make no mistake, this film has 'sleeper hit' marked all over it.  Most people I've talked to don't know about it yet--which is a little surprising given the high profile names attached--but I guess there's some logic to that.  After all, the title doesn't contain a bankable franchise or a sequel number.

Nevertheless, for some reason, I'm also confident in the quality.  Abrams' films always seem to bring depth to their subject matter that connects with issues related to the larger world and our role in it.

You can watch the trailer here.

The Debt

Helen Mirren, Sam Worthington

August 31st, 2011

This film is one of those rare occasions when I've actually seen a film before it's released.  

Interestingly, this film got it's North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival last year and I was fortunate enough to be in attendance to one of the screenings.  It's a fascinating, well-acted film that explores some complex issues.  For our purposes, I would suggest that some of the key issues to be examined regard the generational pain of guilt and the messiness of love.  (Yes, Eric.  That's for you.  lol)  You can see the trailer here.

Personally, the release date on this film bothers me.  This was a film that was to be released on December 31st of last year, at the height of Oscar season.  Yet, probably due to distribution/licensing issues, it's been pushed to the Labor Day weekend--historically the worst weekend of the year for box office.  Such a move is surprising to me.  It is possible that the distributer just don't have confidence in it. More likely, however, I would suggest that they're trying to score a boosted box office (ala Clooney's The American last year) by floating it as an action movie--which it isn't.  It may help the box office but never helps the film long term.  Films released at this time are quickly forgotten.  Don't forget it.  It's worth a view.

Others that may be worth noting (with links to trailers):  I Am (documentary by Tom Shadyac); Cowboys and Aliens (Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford); Friends with Benefits (Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis); Crazy, Stupid, Love (Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling); Rise of the Planet of the Apes (James Franco)

Letter from the Editor

Phew.  It's been a while.

Admittedly, I'm not one of those people who blog every day anyways but, certainly, I've committed myself to 2-3 a month.  (Believe it or not, these posts take me quite a while to produce... which could be a good or bad thing, pending what you think of them.  lol)  At any rate, sudden health issues pretty much too over my life for the month of March and so, things like blogging kinda took a backseat.  (Although, oddly enough, it has never really left my mind--I've enjoyed this far too much.)

At any rate, I would like to once again thank everyone who has continued to offer their prayer and support.  It has meant more than you could ever know.

Things have settled down immensely now and I have caught up on most of my workload as well.  As such,  I hope to get some posts up again at my usual pace.

I'm sure that much of this didn't really need to be said.  (I'm sure that there isn't anyone out there lamenting the disappearance of this conversation.)  Still, I felt that, due to the unique relationship of blogger/recipient, I would fire off a quick post to get you up to speed.  This particular opportunity to discuss the conversation between faith and film--although relatively small--has been exciting and fun for me and I hope for you as well.

So, thanks.

Really.

SafeEyes: The Pornification of Culture

Our culture fluctuates between emphasizing the sexually explicit to complete censorship, depending on the popularity of the issue.   Culture can create terms like "wardrobe malfunction", claiming moral high ground and chastising Janet Jackson in the process yet, the same time, continue to encourage themes of sexual exploration.  (Even this week's episode of Glee took a decidedly open attitude towards sex, portraying the 'Abstinence Club' as a ridiculous suggestion, even calling those in support of it as 'prudes' and 'unrealistic'.)  Nevertheless, this post is not to debate that particular issue.  Today, I'd like to focus on the issue of pornography itself.

Much has been made over the last 10 years about pornography, especially that on the internet.  Personally, I feel like this is a justified concern.  Pornography destroys lives, cripples marriages and fully reshapes the way in which one views the opposite sex (whether male or female).  I have heard statistics that as many as 50% of men and women in an average church are involved in viewing pornography in some way.  However, there's just one question that I'm concerned with at this time...

What exactly is pornography anyways?

I have a theory that no one in the church really knows what it is.  You see, our culture really defines pornography as to "pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."  (In fact, I've even heard the definition that something is not porn until you can view penetration on screen)  Yet, there really are no standards to what that is.  The MPAA basically makes their judgment on a case by case basis, creating wild inconsistencies between films.  (If you're interested in hearing more about the inconsistencies of the MPAA, check out the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated.)  Sexuality can easily be cited as art by some while the same (or similar) scene will be judged as vile. What's more, citing the words of Jesus in Matthew 5, I have heard the church issue countless warnings about pornography, using similar principles to the MPAA yet with far more conservative boundaries.

This is pornography.  This isn't.

Enjoy Peter Wier's Witness but beware of the nudity in Titanic.

So where is the boundary?  What makes something pornographic vs. art?

Personally, I believe the line needs to be drawn with 'intent'.    And I believe that this is relevant in two primary ways.

First, intent of the artist.  This one is usually the most obvious.  When nudity or sexuality are involved in a film, you can more often than not tell if it's there to sell tickets.  I believe that Love and Other Drugs is the most recent example of this.  Rather than emphasize the narrative themes, I would argue that the nudity is the only thing people talk about when they've seen the film.  In fact, it was what was primarily spoken of during the press tours, complete with 3 different covers of a nude Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal on Entertainment Weekly.  The nudity doesn't really add to the narrative per se but becomes a gimmick.  (Although, it could be argued that it has to do with vulnerability... but I would argue that the prevalence of it would probably work against this theory.)  However, in Brokeback Mountain, ironically also starring Hathaway and Gyllenhaal, one could argue that the nudity actually fits their scene together as they rabidly try to save their failing marriage.  This is a key distinction in that, in one case, the nudity is merely presented in a manner to titilate the viewership and, in the other, the nudity is included to reinforce film theme-related discussion.

Second, and in many ways, most important is the intent of the viewer.  There is no doubt in my mind that the viewer must take responsibility for, not just what they watch, but how they watch it.  Jesus spoke very clearly that lust occurs when "anyone... looks at a woman lustfully".  In fact, I would argue that we all--male or female--have the ability take anything from Blue Valentine to a car commercial and reframe it in a way that drives us to lust.  The fact that our gaze shapes how we understand everything from media to the opposite sex is what makes it so important.  I don't necessarily agree that nudity in and of itself is what drives us to mistreat, misuse or reimagine the human body for our own sexual needs.  Rather, I do feel that the manner in which we allow ourselves to interpret the images we're presented that shapes our interactions with others.  (Perhaps that's why Paul calls us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds in Romans 12:1-2?)  Our manner of thinking is what establishes our lifestyle.  As such, I believe that the way in which we view a film or other artistic expressions can easily be changed by the way in which we allow ourselves to see them (and that may reshape our understanding of sexuality in reality).

Some will read this post to be a wishy-washy position but I do not believe this to be the case.  I believe we all bear the responsibility to what we view and how.  Nevertheless, I also maintain that there are times when controversial content can be justified in order to build thematic structure or context.

But that doesn't mean you need to watch.

SafeEyes: The Boundaries of Good Taste

One of my favourite media-related stories of my childhood stems from the summer of 1985.  The date is relevant.  Given that it was a quiet night and my family had nothing else to do, we decided to go to a movie.  The problem was finding a movie that we could all enjoy.  My parents were very careful with what movies they let us see and, with a seven year age difference between my sister and I (ages 15 and 8, respectively), that made choosing a flick somewhat of a challenge at times.  Nevertheless, when decision time came, my father opted to take my sister to Back to the Future.  However, because of the presence of bad language in BTTF, my mother decided instead to bring me to a safer choice - the latest Disney animated feature... The Black Cauldron.  

I love this story because, at least to me now, it seems absurd.  Why is this funny?  Because, in their efforts to keep me safe, they unwittingly brought me into what is widely known as one of the darkest Disney features of all time.  Seriously.  Instead of taking me into a film about a young man who unwittingly drives his car 30 years into the past, my parents brought me into a film about a dark wizard who seeks to create an army of undead warriors to conquer the world.  Black Cauldron was such an embarrassment to Disney's squeaky clean image at the time that they banned the film from video release until viewer demand in 1998 brought it to light for a limited time.  Just for a laugh, check out the theatrical trailer.  Experience the childlike wonder.  Lol.

Don't get me wrong.  I thoroughly applaud and appreciate my parents for seeking to make wise decisions in my viewing.  They didn't know what the film was about and were trying to keep their kid away from language that they didn't want them to repeat.  As a parent now, I feel like I understand that decision more and more each day.  Still, situations like this have always caused me to come back to one question:

What makes something inappropriate?

The question of content vs. context has been one that has weighed on my heart for years now.  I mean, how much swearing is too much?  Is it okay?  Does nudity have a place in film artistically?  What about violence?  I have often wondered this because, really, I believe that 'the Church' really oversimplifies the issue.  Because of our puritanical roots, we tend to deem a film 'okay' if it is without bad language or nudity.  (Let's face it, violence isn't really even on the radar in our culture... unless it's graphic or gory.)  I can count off numerous times when people have spoken to me about content in film and debated the appropriateness of content.  (Once, I even had one person tell me that Spiderman was pretty good... 'there was that one passionate kiss, but other than that...')  Although, is that really the issue?  No one argues over Michaelangelo's David as pornographic, even though his dangly bits are out for all to see.  Yet, in a film, it's an automatic NC-17 rating from the MPAA.  Although I'm not arguing for increased nudity in film, I'm merely trying to point out what might be considered to be a double standard.

At present, there is currently a debate about the content of The King's Speech, leading frontrunner at the Oscars this year.  (You can read about the controversy here and here.)  In an effort to make the film more 'family friendly', the studio has opted to rerelease it without some of the language present.  Apparently, the majority of the language takes place in one scene where the King's language coach attempts to get him to curse.  As a result, the film received an 'R' rating from the MPAA.   As I write this, I haven't seen the film so it is difficult for me to comment directly about it.  However, I am curious as to whether or not this is necessary.  Does context count for nothing?  (Interestingly enough, I have had several people from our church congregation talk to me about the scene--including family members--who have said that the use of language in this setting 'didn't bother them'.)

There is no question that we must be concerned about our media intake.  Scripture demands critical hearts.  Philippians 4:8 invites us to think about things that are 'noble' and 'praiseworthy'... but are the lines drawn so clearly at content?  I do not believe that this is the case.  Themes and worldview are also worthy of note in our discussions as well and, I believe, can trump content in the right context.  Certainly, there are instances where films produce absolute garbage in terms of content and context--and I'm not calling for the embrace of everything and the removal of personal boundaries.  Such talk would be foolish.  Yet, I do hope to maybe challenge the way many people view this issue.  I expect that this will be a topic that is recurring over my next few postings (outside of reviews) as I attempt to explore this issue.  I would like to address issue such as the nature of pornography and where do boundaries come into play.  I'm no expert.  Just a guy asking questions.

Still, let's see where this goes.