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.  

The Nominees Revealed and the Question for the Church

The announcement of this year's Academy Awards nominations always brings with it the usual debates.  Who surprised?  (Bardem!)  Who got snubbed?  (Nolan!)

Momentum.  Controversy.  Favourite.  Underdog.  Every year, all of these words are used to grapple with the Academy's picks.  In fact, I'm even sure that I'll address these issues as time draws nearer to the eventual opening of the envelopes.

Though really, the question for the Church today is something different...

"Should we care?"

Most people give a resounding 'No!' to this issue.  After all, the Oscars is really nothing more than an opportunity for Johnny Depp, Scarlett Johansson and Angelina Jolie to gear up in Versace and Prada and walk the red carpet.  It's frivolous fluff.  Besides, they haven't seen the movies anyways.

As a church, however, I don't think we should be so quick to tune out.

It will come as no surprise to you that, yes, I believe there is relevance hidden under the Gucci and gold for the church today.  Although the Academy has always been accused of being 'out of touch', the films that win (and are even nominated) demonstrate themselves to be cultural touch points.  Because everything is always a product of the time at which it is created, we learn a lot about the worldview and values of the dominant culture of our own time from its films.  Films like The Social Network, Inception, and The King's Speech are films which speak our moment in time (even if they're not set in it).  For the Church at large to ignore this fact is to miss an opportunity to engage Hollywood on their turf.

Art is a doorway to a culture.  The Apostle Paul knew that and would study the poetry and art of a city upon his arrival.  (Lest we forget the statue to the 'Unknown god'...)  As Christians, we have been called into our world with relevance and humble hearts.  We don't always like the messages we hear from the cinema--but that doesn't make them less relevant.  How can we truly speak the Kingdom of God into a culture if we aren't willing to listen to them first?

Yet, at the same time, I would also suggest that the answer to our question can also be 'No' as well.  (Though maybe not for the reason you'd expect.)  The truth is that, as essential as it is to grapple with the texts of the dominant culture, it doesn't hold a candle to the truth of the stories of those in our nearest proximity and community.  In other words, although understanding the theological values inherent within True Grit is a healthy exercise of the mind, it decreases in importance in light of our own ability to hear the voices of the people in our neighbourhood.  These are the stories that matter most.  To contemporize the Gospel, we must first engage our own culture.  The values in our area may be entirely different than those exemplified in this year's Oscar race.

As such, to wrestle with the texts of those worthy of even being mentioned with the phrase "Best Picture Nominee" needs to be vital exercise within the church if it is to stay relevant.  However, one must also not assume they understand the needs of their community simply because they are aware of those of the dominant culture.

And seriously, what does Christopher Nolan have to do to get a nomination for directing?  Throw him a bone, guys...

Avatar

Starring Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver

Directed by James Cameron                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated PG                                                                                    Rating: ****1/2 (out of 5)           

            Dances with Wolves.  Pocahontas.  Ferngully: The Last Rainforest.  Even The Matrix.

            By now, I’m sure that you’ve heard these stories among many others in the discussion as cynical comparisons to James Cameron’s Avatar.  If not, you’ve undoubtedly heard that the special effects (including new 3D technology) that comprise this film are going to change the way that filmmaking is done forever.  (I had even heard that, if you don’t see it in 3D, you might as well not see it at all…)

            Although many of these claims are not unfair, the truth is that James Cameron’s Avatar is much more than mere spectacle or stereotype.

            Story wise, Avatar is set as the human race seeks to mine an invaluable resource from below the surface of the planet, Pandora.  Here, they encounter an indigenous race that refuses to comply with their corporate plans, known as the Na’vi.  As a result, the ‘Company’ (a nod to Cameron’s evil corporation in his 80s epic, Aliens) institutes ‘the Avatar program’, an initiative designed to create a diplomatic solution by ‘downloading’ a human’s consciousness into the body of a Na’vi.  When Jake Sully, a former marine with nothing to lose, is recruited to join the ‘Avatar’ program, he is sent to live amongst the Na’vi to gather military intel for a possible invasion.  However, as Jake becomes increasingly involved in the Na’vi culture, he is forced to re-evaluate his perspectives and grapple with the moral implications of his military involvement.

            The most interesting thing about Avatar though is that Cameron isn’t satisfied with resting on the special effects of his technological masterpiece alone.  Thematically, the movie wrestles with more serious topics ranging from the plight of imperialism to the destructiveness of capitalism.  For our purposes, however, it is important to recognize some of the deeper theological issues that Avatar addresses.  The Na’vi are deeply spiritual people, devout in their worship of Eywa, their deity devoted to keeping ‘nature in balance’.  The Na’vi care for nothing other than peace and connectedness with their planet and each other, a stark contrast to the destructive capitalist mindset of the ‘Company’.  What I found interesting was that, despite the obvious similarities of Na’vi theology to native spirituality, there are some connections with Christian theology.  For example, the name Eywa bears a strong resemblance to the Jewish name for God, Yahweh.  Further, there is even mention of the fact that, in order to really begin living one’s life, they must be born a second time.

            In fact, the film also has a strong missional theme of engagement as well.  Jake’s journey in his avatar is extremely incarnational as he (literally) steps into the Na’vi culture as one of their own.  This transformation is an incredible representation of the tension of evangelical engagement.  What is our motivation as we engage our communities?  Is it to bring our agendas to the world and force them to change?  Or, are we willing to humble ourselves, journey into the comfort zones of others and listen to their stories before we speak?  In Avatar, Jake takes the latter approach and, in doing so, develops such deep relationships with the indigenous people that he quickly becomes a part of their world.  As a result, they trust him and are willing to listen to what he has to say.  They view him as one of their own.  (Incidentally, Jake becomes so ingrained into the Na’vi world that his superior officer, frustrated by the fact that his opportunity for conquest may be slipping away, snarls “You think you’re one of them?  Time to wake up.”)  As the church, it is our responsibility to engage our culture in this manner.  As Jesus took on human form in an effort to reach us, so should we seek to lovingly reach our communities by establishing our place within it.  This is not to say that we lose our identity as believers, but rather that we would begin to understand that we are a called to be a foretaste of the Kingdom amongst the people of the world. 

            Cameron’s Avatar appears to understand the importance of allowing the lives of others reach into our own.  Themes of community, ecology and humility pervade this film, making it so much more than your typical blockbuster.

But, seriously, if you’re going to see it, see it in 3D…

True Grit

Starring Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated PG-13 for violence                                                            Rating: ****1/2 (out of 5)           

            “The wicked run away when there is no one chasing them.” (Proverbs 28:1)

            This is the verse that opens the Coens’ remake of True Grit, and it sums up the world in which Joel and Ethan create perfectly.  Theirs is a wilderness that is harsh and unforgiving and the world in which these characters exist even more so.

            Set in the mid-19^th Century, Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is a 14-year-old girl, sent to town to pick up her father’s body after having been murdered by an outlaw named Tom Cheney (Josh Brolin).  However, upon her arrival, it is revealed that she has much more in mind.  Rather than returning home, Mattie seeks justice for her father’s death and enlists the help of Rooster Cogburn (an unrecognizable Jeff Bridges), a broken, alcoholic US Marshall, to go with her on the journey.  To complicate matters, Mattie and Cogburn must also deal with La Boeuf (Matt Damon), a Texas Ranger who seeks to capture Cheney for his own reasons.  Together, the unlikely trio ventures into the unforgiving terrain of the West to bring back Cheney for his rightful hanging.

            Most interesting to me, however, was the spirituality that pervades this dark scenario.  Rather than one of contemplative humility, the God of this world is one of judgment. An illustration of this comes in the film’s early going as we witness a hanging of three outlaws.  In this instance, the prisoners to the left and right are cold and unrepentant of their crimes.  They are men who act because they choose to.  It’s who they are.  However, when given the chance to speak, the offender in the middle pleads for grace.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that he seeks forgiveness for his actions, his character appears sniveling and weak and, ultimately, receives the same fate as those that are unrepentant.  The message?  Take it like a man, boy.  Everyone dies.  Scenes such as these are mere snapshots of the film’s sense of morality.  Grace is available to all, but only taken by the weak.  No, in this harsh reality, true justice comes in the form of retribution.  (However, it is also interesting to note that redemption is also possible in this world, as exemplified through the transformation of Rooster Cogburn.  Nevertheless, despite his transition, Rooster remains unrepentant for his history of violence, deeming it ‘what was necessary’.)

            What’s more, this world is an example of what happens when we shape God into our own image.  One manifestation of this comes through the extended thematic use of ‘Leaning on the Everlasting Arms’ throughout the course of the film.  Used to set the feel of a traditional western, I also found its use quite ironic given the film’s commitment to vengeance and violence.  These are men and women who take their lives in their own hands.  Yes, there’s concern for the afterlife… but only when faced with death directly.  The best example of this comes through Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross who, at the age of 14, understands God as merciful—she quotes Scripture on several occasions to that effect—yet maintains a heart of vengeance and justice.  Within her, it is almost as though there is a complete disconnect between her understanding of grace and real-world application.  Of course, there are those that deserve forgiveness… just don’t tell her it’s Tom Cheney.  This ‘shaping’ of God is extremely poignant in a culture such as ours that emphasizes personal experience over God’s objective reality.  “God created man… and then man returned the favour” is a phrase that has become increasingly commonplace.  Throughout our culture—and especially the church—we have come to emphasize snippets of God that we like, while downplaying aspects of His character that we do not.  As a result, the Coens have touched upon a cultural value that speaks to our own desire for self-reliance.

            With this in mind, there is a distinct flavour of God in the Coen Brothers’ vision of True Grit.  Though His grace is referenced, it is a picture of the violent and vengeful aspects of God that break through in this portrait of the West.  The God of this land is very present yet as harsh as the terrain that they inhabit.

Chloe

Starring Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, Liam Neeson

Directed by Atom Egoyan                                                            By Steve Norton

Rated R for sexuality, nudity and language                                    Rating: *** ½  (out of 5)           

            In a world of loss and disconnection, how does one ultimately understand their own humanity?  This question is central to the heart of Atom Egoyan’s Chloe, a haunting sexual thriller that grapples with the complexity of human relationships in a culture devoid of the acknowledgement of the existence of God.

            Set in Toronto (playing itself for once), Chloe tells the story of Catherine and David Stewart (Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson, respectively), a married couple who has seemingly lost all the passion in their relationship with one another.   Even their son, Michael (Max Theiriot), has begun to separate emotionally from his family, living his life primarily from within his room.  A professor, David travels often and, as a result, the ever increasing void of family intimacy appears to go unnoticed by him (or is he simply disinterested?)  Nevertheless, Catherine is convinced that another reason exists.  She believes that her husband is having an affair.  Desperate to find the truth, Catherine creates a simple scenario:  she will hire a prostitute to attempt to seduce her husband.

            It is here that we meet Chloe. 

And it is here that things begin to spiral out of control.

As the relationship between Chloe and David intensifies, so too does her relationship with Catherine.  As a result, Catherine is quickly drawn into this world of deceit and loneliness and is soon caught up in her own web.

            The core of Egoyan’s Chloe is the relational dynamic between David and Catherine and how the introduction of Chloe into the mix creates chaos within their marriage.  Although, through this exploration of relationships, Egoyan’s film also wrestles with the reality of human existence in a world without God.  For example, whereas the centrality of God creates wholeness and intimacy, Egoyan’s Chloe offers us a world of disconnect and broken relationships.  Through David and Catherine’s marriage, Egoyan explores the dangers of our cultural obsession with self-satisfaction and online personas.  An excellent example of this comes through the character of David who, because of his hectic work schedule, is able to have his personal needs met via. interactions (both personal and online) with his adoring students.  What’s more, when Catherine inquires as to what he’s doing, he simply minimizes the conversation, keeping her further away from his other life.  In doing so, he continues to create a divide between himself and Catherine yet even he seems unaware of how it began.  (David himself wonders why, despite their former passion for one another, they “no longer pick each other up from the airport”.)  Ironically, this shattering of intimacy has become all too common in our fast-paced world of constant connectivity.  Although we are wired in all the time, one gets the sense that we are never truly open and honest with one another anymore.  True brokenness and intimacy—key signs of the reign of God—have been lost and, as such, we have been left with falsehood and deception.

What’s more, Chloe also recognizes that, in a world without God, the worship of sexuality has become the ultimate expression of life and reality.   Due to the deep scarring of the loss of intimacy, sexuality rapidly is sold as the answer fill the void and achieve personal wholeness once again.  This is best evidenced in the character of Chloe herself who uses sex to meet other needs that are lacking.  To her, sex is the only way that she knows how to experience life, even if the encounters are based on lies.  (She claims that, in her line of work, she can “be anyone you want [her] to be.”)  To Egoyan, sexuality is what is left when one wants to feel fully human in our society.  However, what’s frightening is how accurate this assumption is.  Although created by God as good and whole, sexuality has become gutted of its original intent.  For instance, in our culture that has become so obsessed with the image, there is little doubt that we have lost holistic love for the other.  This loss of the understanding of the image of God, coupled with the accessibility of pornography through the internet has resulted in a tsunami of sexual addictions, both from outside and within the church.  Like Chloe, our culture has the ability to visualize each ‘other’ in “any way [we] want them to be”.  Nevertheless, with the loss of a healthy understanding of the imago Dei, we have therefore found ourselves as a culture seeking to rediscover our humanity through the creation rather than the Creator.

There’s something lingering about Chloe.  Even after the film is over, it stays with you.  Perhaps it’s the intensity of the film’s emotional core.  Or, more chillingly, perhaps it’s the fact that this particular world is all too real.  And familiar.

Up in the Air

Starring George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick                       

Directed by Jason Reitman                                                                        By Steve Norton

Rated 14A                                                                                                *****

Available on DVD and Blu-ray

            “How much does your life weigh?”           

This is the question that is asked in Jason Reitman’s profound film, Up in the Air… and it could not be appropriate than in today’s culture.  Although the novel for Up in the Air (Walter Kirn) was first written in 2001 and the film went into pre-production in mid-2008, it could not have proven more timely than at its release.  As the world grapples with the effects of the ‘economic downturn’ and rising unemployment, Up in the Air seeks to delve into the core values of North American culture.  In doing so, Reitman manages to contemporize an age-old question as he wrestles with what is really important in life.

            Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a man who makes his living travelling across the country, firing people when their bosses are too cowardly to do so.  His motivational speech ‘What’s in your backpack?’ is a testament to his quest for individual achievement, symbolized by his mission of acquiring 10 million air miles.  Travelling 260 days a year, he proudly lives out of his suitcase and feels a strong sense of comfort in the ‘elite status’ that his travels have bestowed upon him.  That is, until he is called into the boss’ office and instructed to bring their young protégée, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) on the road with him so that he can ‘show her the ropes’.  This change in his routine, in combination his encounter with the feisty Alex (Vera Farmiga) – who refers to herself as the ‘female version’ of Ryan) – begins to challenge his worldview of disconnectedness and invites him to question the value of his way of life.

Thematically, there is much to digest and engage, especially for the church.  At its core, the film wrestles with the question of success.  Bingham’s motivational speech establishes his belief that success is merely the next job.  Says Bingham, “Make no mistake.  Moving is living.  We’re not swans.  We’re sharks.”  This mantra dictates the way he lives and the way he engages others.  He remains disconnected from those he is called to fire (he states that it’s better not to know their names) and refuses to be tied down by family relationships (as indicated when his sister reminds him that he’s ‘basically dead’ to them).  Yet, although there are times when Bingham appears to be right in his philosophy (as revealed in Natalie’s relationship with her boyfriend), the film continuously draws the viewer back to the overall hollowness of that ideology.  For Reitman, success lies in the value of one’s relationships and their connectedness.  Connection is the reality of this generation (and actually is a theme which pervades Reitman’s previous work, Juno).  Most fascinating to me is that this film identifies online connection as cold and, ultimately, ineffective.  In fact, in one of the film’s more powerful moments, Natalie is forced to fire someone online, despite the fact that she would much rather do so in person.  Given this generation’s emphasis on hyperconnectivity, I.found this argument surprising and even controversial.  The question of connection is extremely relevant to the church and, I believe, requires more reflection than I can do in a short review.

What’s more, Up in the Air also makes a powerful argument for the value of one’s humanity.  Although he had at first thought of using professional actors, Reitman instead invited people who have actually been fired to play the employees who are being let go.  In order to maintain a sense of reality, Reitman encouraged them to say and do the very things they told their employers at their dismissal.  The result brings a sense of gravitas to the film as people are allowed to bear their souls on camera.  These people are more than just nameless characters in a film.  They are real people with families and lives that are being affected by business decisions.  Oddly enough, it was on this level that I felt the film became most relevant to the state of the church today. If the church is ever to properly engage and speak into the culture for the Kingdom, we must be aware of the humanity of the people with whom we’re ministering.  Simply memorizing evangelical platitudes and strategies is not enough if the church desires to be relevant in our world today.  We must be fully aware of the stories of those around us and speak into them lovingly.  Too often, evangelistic opportunities have been about communicating the Gospel and ignoring the person (not to mention, never following up—as is the case with Bingham).  Instead, we must listen and hear in order to ever be able to properly communicate Kingdom truth.

 Make no mistake, this film is nothing short of remarkable.  Jason Reitman—who has quickly established himself as one Hollywood’s premier young talents—weaves an intricate narrative, without offering any particularly easy answers to the questions that he’s asking.   As Bingham, Clooney gives the most raw performance of his career to date.  It is honest, penetrating and even self-deprecating (especially given that he is arguably Hollywood’s biggest star and really does portray himself as the consummate bachelor).  The female leads (Farmiga and Kendrick) are revelations in their performances and manage to stay in step with Clooney’s performance (and, in some cases, even upstage him).   Nevertheless, I also believe that there is much for the church to engage within this film as well.  Themes of the nature of humanity and connectedness have never been more relevant to our culture and we, as the Kingdom of God, must be able to speak to these issues.  For these reasons, this film quickly becomes a relatable tool for congregations and a valuable reality check for the church in its relationship with the community.