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.

The Social Network

Starring Jessie Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake

Directed by David Fincher                                                        By Steve Norton

Rated PG-13 for sexuality and drug use                                    Rating: **** (out of 5)

Available on Blu-ray and DVD           

            Every movie speaks to a certain moment in time.  It really is inescapable. Every film speaks to the values and social issues of its culture and, as such, presents us with an opportunity for cultural study.  However, some films do more than that.  Some films offer timely windows that people years from now will be able to use to gain a better understanding of our culture.  They capture a ‘moment-in-time’.

            The Social Network is such a film.

            Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not claiming that it’s the greatest film of all time or anything.  I think it’s great—but not the best movie I’ve ever seen.  Rather, I do believe that The Social Network offers a clear portrait of the values and issues being addressed by this generation… and that makes it an important film.

            Penned by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing), The Social Network follows the story of Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg), a student at Harvard University.  Zuckerberg is a man who craves connection—his ultimate goal is to join a fraternity—yet exists outside the popularity circle.  So, partnering with his best friend Eduardo Savarin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg develop a website designed to connect Harvard students in a way that they haven’t before online.  In his own words, Zuckerberg’s endgame is to build a site that ‘takes the college experience and puts it on the internet’.   As a result, ‘Facebook’ is born.  As the site grows in popularity, Zuckerberg finds himself battling everything from copyright infringement laws to lawsuits from his (now former) friends.

Although initially written off by the press as ‘the Facebook movie’, The Social Network, has demonstrated it’s own social importance.  Directed by David Fincher, this film has shone a light firmly on the challenges of this hyper-connected generation of youth (which, ironically, is something that Fincher swears he never meant to do).   As such, for our purposes, there is as much to grapple with theologically as there is culturally.  For instance, one of the primary themes within the film is the quest for personal wholeness in today’s society.  Throughout the film, this issue is best demonstrated through Mark Zuckerberg’s personal journey.  Without question, Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckerberg is complex to say the least, conspiring against his friends at one moment while appearing naïve and broken the next.  We are reminded several times that ‘Mark doesn’t care about money’ yet he fights tirelessly for his site to conquer the world.  It’s an interesting contrast because, even as Facebook rises in power, Zuckerberg has difficulty truly reveling in the moment.  In a fashion similar to Citizen Kane, it’s as if the success Zuckerberg craves so badly is merely a feeble attempt to fill the gaping hole within him.  Despite being at the centre of the social universe, Zuckerberg seems to cling to the memory of his ex-girlfriend and yearns for love.  (Although, at the same time, one could also make the argument that his continued interest in her stems from the fact that she is the one who rejects him—and Mark likes things to happen on his terms.)  Either way, The Social Network portrays Zuckerberg as a man who seeks to build an empire—to ‘do something exceptional’—yet lacks a sense of completion.  Just like his description of Facebook, Mark will ‘never be done’.  The relevance of this issue cannot be ignored as we, as a culture, continue to search for the answer of what it means to be whole.  Insatiated with ourselves, we work to earn the right to experience fullness and grace but to no avail.  Instead, only through an active relationship with Christ can we ever begin to understand what it means to experience holistic rest and true shalom. 

In addition, The Social Network also speaks to the reality of the ‘new community’. Whether one is ready to admit it or not, relational connections have changed as a result of the internet and, more specifically, Facebook.  In The Social Network, Zuckerberg’s dream is to create the opportunity for people to engage one another socially—even personally—at all times.  In doing so, he creates a space for people to vent the gambit of their emotions, all the while feeling completely safe and secure in themselves.  Nevertheless, The Social Network is also very honest about the possible realities that such a shift encompasses.  Zuckerberg blogs about his ex-girlfriend online and faces the consequences for it.  Eduardo fails to change the relationship status on his Facebook page and must try explain why to his girlfriend.  Ironically, it’s here that The Social Network really speaks to the Church at large.  As Christians, we must be aware of this changing relational landscape and be prepared to engage our world through its lenses.  The social realm of the internet in many ways is the new “ends of the Earth” into which Jesus commanded the disciples to speak.  Still, however, the Church seems slow at times to address and reassess its understanding and practice of modern day Kingdom relationships.  The ‘new community’ is a changing reality and the Church needs to rethink how to bring holistic Gospel life into the world as it stands.

            By following the journey of Mark Zuckerberg, The Social Network challenges us to reimagine our world and its understanding of the ‘new community’.  Will people remember the film in 10 or 15 years?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Still, for this moment in time, David Fincher has offered us insight into the broken nature of the hyper-connected generation.