Dean A. Anderson

Following the Rules - "The Artist"

2012-02-17T04:38:00.000-08:00

It has been argued that art benefits from limits. Sonnets must have 14 lines and adhere to structures of rhyme and meter. Great artists don’t say, “I can’t work with those rules” but take up the challenge. Shakespeare wrote 154 sonnets, not including those in his plays.

Some limitations of art can be attributed to choice and some are imposed by circumstances. The producer Val Lewton made low budget horror films in the 1940s. He didn’t have the money for elaborate special effects for films like “Cat People” or “The Seventh Victim” so he had to use shadow and impressions to scare the audience. And arguably his films where the frights took place in the minds of the audience better than some films of the period that now seem dated by laughable creature effects.

The Production Code of the Hayes Office limited what could be openly shown and talked about in mainstream Hollywood films. And though I’m not an advocate for censorship, such films as “Casablanca” and “Notorious” are much more subtle and even adult in dealing with issues of sexuality than most modern films that are free to show more body parts.

Michel Hazanavicius, the French writer and director, of last year’s acclaimed film, “The Artist”, imposed upon himself several rather daunting limits. Set in Hollywood from 1927 – 32, the film, like those of the silent era has no spoken dialogue (mostly), is black and white and uses screen proportions of those years in film. Interestingly, it also complies with the content restrictions of the era (mostly; with the exception of a rude hand gesture and an implied act of violence that might not have made it to the screen at that time.)

Jean Duardin plays a swashbuckling star of the silver screen (think Fairbank/Valentino) named George Valentin at the peak of his career who meets a young starlet on the rise (Peppy Miller played by Berenice Bejo). The advent of sound proves devastating to his career as it was for many silent stars.

Ultimately, “The Artist” is a story about pride; a man too proud to accept help when it is needed, even to accept love.

When his studio switches to making “talkies” exclusively, Valentin uses his own money to make an elaborate silent film that, along with the market crash, leads to his financial downfall.

He turns out his faithful servant who desires to still serve and resists help from Peppy who desires to return the favors he granted her.
As Proverbs 29:23 teaches, “Pride brings a person low.” The question in the film is whether Valentin will fulfill the second part of that verse, “but the lowly in spirit will gain honor.”

Hazanavicius playfully uses the conceits of the silent film, the facial mugging and exaggerated gestures to kid, but not mock the films of that period. He also strategically uses sound effects to hint at the great changes to come in the film world. He wisely uses the limits to push himself to make his art.

Just as art is often improved by limits, God provides limits for his people to improve our lives. His commands are not impediments to our happiness, but like a rhyme scheme for a poem, a challenge to live richer, more creative lives for him.

(And on a side note, if you have never taken the time to watch the great silent classics, you are missing some great fun. Comedy in particular found a unique “voice” in this era that is only hinted at in “The Artist”. Start with Charlie Chaplin [“City Lights”, “Modern Times”] and Buster Keaton [“Sherlock Jr.”, “The General”] and discover a treasure trove of laughs, and yes, art.)

Favorite Jokes #4

2012-02-04T05:11:00.000-08:00

Yes, they are very morbid, but I've long had affection for "Mommy, Mommy" jokes. But I'll just put one of the less gross ones here. (This one also appeals to my love of movie monsters.)

"Mommy, mommy, what's a werewolf?"

"Shut up, and comb your face!"

(Aren't you glad I didn't do, "Mommy, mommy, what's a vampire?")

Review of "Nerd Do Well", a memoir by Simon Pegg

2012-02-04T02:11:00.000-08:00

One usually reads an autobiography because of admiration for the person who wrote the book. So it is disappointing when when one finishes the book thinking less of the person who wrote it.

Sadly, that was the case for me here. I’m indifferent to Pegg’s TV series, “Spaced”. But I’m a big fan of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” and I think Pegg is one of the best things in the last couple of “Mission Impossible” films and the “Star Trek” reboot.

You never can know an actor from his screen persona, but since Pegg had a hand in the making of his Edgar Wright films, his personality is a bit more on view.
Pegg is rather dull at times in the book, which is certainly forgivable. But his editor should have told him that his fantasy sequences interspersed with the autobiographical sections just don’t work. They have funny bits, but the joke runs dry and isn’t helped by crude references.

And his analysis of “Star Wars” (a chapter long) and other films brings nothing fresh that most nerds have not thought of themselves or read on hundreds of message boards. “Harry S. Plinkett” at Red Letter Media and Patton Oswalt have covered this material more thoroughly and with much more wit.

But at times the author doesn’t seem very bright. On a section on VHS films which he watched in his teen years, he writes this about British censorship, “I certainly wouldn’t want my teenage child watching a film that made violence titillating, promoted misogyny or featured truly disturbing imagery. It’s just a shame these sel-appointed guardians of decency lacked the guile and intelligence to distinguish between smart cinematic genre pieces and witless exploitation.” And later he talks about banned films in the UK, mentioning “Last House on the Left”, “I Spit on Your Grave” and “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” and says “It that respect, it (“Texas Chain Saw”) is far more worthy than either Craven (“Last House”) or Gast’s (“I Spit”) schlocky, unpleasant efforts.”

Pegg seems to have little problem with censorship, but just believes the right people weren’t doing it.

The thing that I found most unappealing was Pegg’s snarky , off hand atheism. He talks about the time he stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God. He refers to Jesus as “another much loved historical crackpot”. These remarks make Pegg to me like a thoughtless twit.

He regrets telling stereotypical humor in the past, but it didn’t stop him from using stereotypical humor about Christians and rural Americans in “Paul”.

Pegg’s most endearing trait in the book is his continuing adoration of film makers and stars. I was just sad that my admiration of him slipped after reading this book.

Favorite Joke #3 (Knock, knock variety)

2012-02-02T02:44:00.000-08:00

1) Knock, knock!

2) Who's there?

1) Interrupting Cow.

2) Interrupting...

1) Moo.

(With this joke, of course, timing is everything.)

Favorite Jokes #2 (Will I get to ten?)

2012-02-01T04:35:00.000-08:00

Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?

It was dead.

Favorite Jokes

2012-01-31T01:24:00.000-08:00

I mentioned one of my favorite jokes at Facebook today, which made me think which jokes I've been telling for many years. The one at Facebook was this:
"Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac? He stayed awake at night, wondering if there was a dog."
I'm not sure I have ten very favorite jokes, but I'll try to see if I come up with them in the next couple of weeks.

Spies Like Us

2012-01-21T18:18:00.000-08:00

Intrigue is everywhere. In the workplace, schemes to rise in the ranks and pull others down proliferate. Alliances form and dissolve based the current authority or who seems to be rising in power.

Many families are mine fields of buried grudges never far below the surface and fingers ready on the trigger to respond to new insults. Sadly, the church often is not a stranger to intrigue. Power plays in the church often take place outside of the power of the Spirit.

The prevalence of intrigue may account for the ongoing interest in spy stories. I’m not writing about the spy stories of Ian Fleming/James Bond variety which feature a handsome hero versus a campy villain with plenty of beautiful women, science fiction gadgets, car chases, and explosions (which can be cool, I’ll be line for Daniel Craig in “Skyfall” in November.) Rather I’m talking about the more subtle spy stories of John le Carré.

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”, a 2011 film release in an adaptation of one of a le Carré novel that features an anti-Bond spy, George Smiley. Played with charming blandness by Gary Oldman, Smiley is quiet, middle-aged bureaucrat who relies on shrewdness and experience rather than his good looks (nonexistent) and gun (at the ready but not used.)

At the beginning of the film, Smiley has been forced to retire. But one last assignment comes his way. There is a double agent in the upper management of British intelligence service (“the Circus”) and Smiley is asked to root out the Soviet mole. Of course, he finds that nothing is as it seems and long established relationships cannot be trusted.

Some may the film slow, and my daughter, Jill, had trouble distinguishing between some characters because they are all, in her words, “so very British”. I loved the very British cast, with some of the best of the young and old to be found on the BBC (John Hurt, Colin Hurt, Tom Hardy and the wonderfully named Benedict Cumberbatch among many.) If you enjoy keeping track of the clues and red herrings in a good mystery, you’ll probably enjoy director Tomas Alfredson’s tale, which does a good job of fitting a complex, 400 page novel into two hours.

But after the film, I wondered, should the Christian life reflect the life of a spy in anyway? There are spies in Scripture, of course. Moses sent out Joshua and Caleb as spies to observe the Promised Land, and they were honored for their work. But spying necessarily involves deception which is contrary to Scripture’s devotion to truth.

The search for a mole in the film led me to think of a parable of Jesus told that can be found in Matthew 13: 24 – 30. A farmer sowed good seed in a field and his enemy sowed weed in the field at night. The farmer’s servants ask him whether they should pull out the weeds, and the farmer says that because some good seed may be lost, it was best to wait for the harvest.

Of course, in the church there are some who are in the words of the parable, weeds, or in the words of the film, moles; people who aren’t truly followers of Christ. But Jesus didn’t give us the job of figuring out who in the church is genuine and who is not. Unlike the spies in the film, we are not to look for opportunities to put a knife in the back, but rather to treat every other person with love.

But there is a way we should be like the spies of the film. The spies in the film are constantly in search of good information (or “treasure” in the film). To know whether information is good or not in the world of intelligence requires knowing the source of the information and requires comparing it to what is known to be true.

In the church, we need to compare all teaching to Scripture, our true treasure.

(“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” is rated R for language, sexual situations, nudity and violence.)

My Top Ten Films in 2011

2012-01-02T01:50:00.000-08:00

My rules for the list, the film was released in 2011 and I have to have seen it in 2011. (So there are films that might prove list worthy, such as Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Guard that I didn’t get around to seeing.)

10) Mission Impossible IV: Ghost Protocol

It helps that I saw this film in IMAX, so the scenes shot at the Dubai tower were frightening and exhilarating. The cast was fine and Simon Pegg was particularly amusing. The action sequences made were fun and exciting. Brad Bird can obviously do the live action as well as the animated. But the back story didn’t make sense to me. (Spoiler: If Cruise told me the reveal he told Renner at the end of the film, in the rather smug way he did, I’d want to smack him.)

9) The Way Back

Peter Weir (The Last Wave, Witness, Master and Commander) has long been one of my favorite directors, so it was good to see him working again and on an epic. Hollywood finally comes to the realization that the Soviet Union was an evil empire only a couple of generations after Reagan. The story of an escape from a Siberian Gulag is heart rending and exciting. Sadly, it does have its share of clichés (such as “tastes like chicken”.) I very much enjoyed Colin Farrell’s performance as a man who perhaps deserved to be in the camp.

8) Attack the Block :

If you see only one Nick Frost film about aliens from last year, make sure it’s this one and not Paul. The story of a gang of young English street thugs fighting alien invaders is fun and has a couple of moment of tenderness. Fun stuff.

7) The Descendants :

Alexander Payne (Election, Sideways, About Schmitt) has not made a bad film yet. This is just one of his lesser works. The script is great, as are most of the actors, especially the young ones. My only problem was I didn’t believe George Clooney as a father or a cuckolded husband. But he’s still fun to spend time with.

6) Rango :

The best animated film I saw this year. Johnny Depp is quite fun in another telling of The Seven Samurai in the 3 Amigos/Bug’s Life mode of the mock hero that comes through. I particularly enjoyed Timothy Olyphant as a thinly disguised Clint Eastwood.

5) Captain America :

My favorite super hero film this year. I’m quite glad they choose to place the film in WWII period as should be for the origin of Cap. I loved the character as a kid and enjoyed seeing him come to life in a form better than the crappy ‘60’s animation I watched as a kid. They even found a creative way for Cap to punch Hitler. Yes, I will be seeing The Avengers right when it opens.

4) 50/50:

Yes, you can make a comedy about cancer. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen are not surprisingly excessively crude at times, but overall it really works. It’s about friendship as much as it’s about disease.

3) Win Win –

Sure, I’m happy to spend time with Paul Giamatti and Amy Ryan, especially if it has a realistic and funny family drama and features high school wrestling. Because as a former high school wrestler I say there is not enough of it in movies.

http://deanaanderson.blogspot.com/2011/05/win-win.html

2) Tree of Life:

Not an easy film, but a great one.

http://deanaanderson.blogspot.com/2011/07/tree-of-life.html

1) Moneyball:

What can I say, I’m an A’s fan.

http://deanaanderson.blogspot.com/2011/10/head-vs-heart-moneyball.html

A Review of Peter Englund's History, "The Beauty and the Sorrow: An Intimate History of WWI"

2011-12-20T03:57:00.000-08:00

Let me preface this review by saying I am a believer in the just war theory and counter the bumper sticker I believe war is sometimes the answer (and not just to questions like, “Aside from frat parties, what human activity is most like to bring out man’s depravity?

But much in this book is a reminder that WWI in particular was blundered into and neither side truly went about the work of preventing evil, but the actions of war on both sides were ultimately futile and only helped lead to another great war in barely a generation’s time.

Englund takes an interesting approach in this book, following the war histories of various soldiers and civilians on both sides of the conflict, from a German school girl to an Australian army engineer to a Danish soldier to a French civil servant.
Their stories are compelling on a variety of levels. Though the book does not attempt to provide an overview of the war, it does bring out many fascinating details.
Here is some of the details I enjoyed learning about:

*The word “tank” come from a deception employed in the weapons construction when they were passed off as “water tanks”.
*Trenches were at times decorated with furniture (chairs, coaches, even beds) looted from homes.
*Prostitutes in France sometimes charged hire rates if they could pass along an illness that might get a soldier away from the front.
*German soldiers would not sing the second verse of “A Mighty Fortress” (Ein Feste Burg) because it might be perceived as a lack of faith in the military (Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing).
*Censorship in French papers led to large blank spaces when stories were removed at the last minute. (Because the Spanish papers were more free, the reporting on those papers on disease led to the name “Spanish Flu”, though the illness struck other nations first.)
*Pigeons were used as message couriers because horses and dogs panicked in battle when tried. (Of course humans were used as runners. Such as Adolph Hitler.)
*Ernest Hemingway’s account of the battle of Caporetto in “Farewell to Arms” was written in Kansas City, a year before he went to Italy.
*Leon Trotsky led a Russian delegation in peace talks and drove Germans crazy with the saying, “Neither war or peace.” (So he should never be mistaken for Leo Tolstoy.)
*American forces had a strict ban on alcohol (and this was before prohibition in the states.)

I enjoyed learning such trivia. But the real riches in the book are the lives Englund brings to life through his diligent work of digging through letters, journals and reports that are now nearly a century old. Sadly, the true war to end all wars is yet to come.

You know that "2010" was meant to be "2011". Sorry

2011-12-13T01:52:00.000-08:00

Favorite TV Shows in 2010

2011-12-13T01:15:00.000-08:00

Since we have only the most basic of cable, there are some shows I might enjoy that I have not seen, so they don't make the list. (Still no "Boardwalk Empire" or "Game of Thrones" on DVD for instance. I'm cheap, I get my DVDs from the library and I don't do pay streaming.)
So here are my rules:
1) I must have watched it on broadcast TV or DVD this year.
2) If I watched it on DVD, it doesn't matter if it was 2010 episodes as long as the show is still running.

I went with a basic top ten:

10) "Chuck" This show was in my last spot last year and it certainly has its weaknesses. (Morgan gets the Intersect? It's good this is the last season or someone might get a pet dog that gets the Intersect.) But I enjoy the characters. Especially Casey, a rare conservative television hero. (He went after a villain when he learned he had cheated Rush Limbaugh.)

9) "Modern Family" Consistently funny. My favorite character is young Luke. It will be interesting to see if he can keep the funny as he gets older. (I am amused by the agenda that is occasionally mentioned by actors in the show that the gay couple on the show will make conservative viewers more open to gay marriage. Just give me laughs, that's what I want it sitcoms. Which the show does, so no gripes. But I'm not looking to sitcoms for political or moral instruction.)

8) "Raising Hope" Aside from, perhaps Nolan Gould as Luke mentioned above, no one plays funny dumb better than the cast of this show. And Hope herself is still cute. Hope Hope doesn't ruin things as she ages.

7) "Sherlock" - Come on BBC....Three episodes? Really....Three Episodes? I guess it says good things that I wanted more from this tale of Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century. And fun to see British "Office"'s Tim as Watson (and interesting that they could have Dr. Watson still serve in the military in Afghanistan). But still, three episodes with a cliff hanger in the third? Come on.

6) "Luther" BBC is stingy with the episodes again. But at least there were 6 in the first season if only 4 in the second. And the second season didn't have nearly enough of the pycho-klller Alice helping and tormenting our already tormented homicide inspector John Luther (played by Stringer Bell with a British accent.) Short season 2 did have a quite satisfying resolution, though.

5) "30 Rock" - Speaking of stingy, NBC held on on Fall adventures of Jack and Liz. But they'll be back in the new year. Consistently smart and funny, a liberal writing staff willing to take shots at liberal politics as well as conservatives.

4) "Breaking Bad" - Who would have thought the awesome daffy father Hal (Bryan Cranston) from "Malcolm in the Middle" could be awesome as a dying meth maker. Banality of evil wonderfully presented as still quite evil.

3) "Community" - And now NBC is not giving new episodes in January of an even higher ranking show. But I guess the show should only go one more year to go with the college schedule. Always makes me laugh. Amazed that they expect the audience to know "Pulp Fiction" and "My Dinner with Andre", so I guess that's why the ratings are not wonderful, even though the show is.

2) "Mad Men" - Love when the focus is on the advertising biz more than the relationships, but they do it all well. Great writing and acting.

1) "Justified" - Raylan Givens just makes me happy. So happy they put a show in Kentucky. So there are states beside CA and NY. Does the comedy and the drama well. The Hitler painting collector had such an unexpected, moving twist at its conclusion. Anxious to get season 2 in the mail come January.

Happy TV viewing in the new year to you.

Oscar for Best Picture - Christian Division

2011-11-17T22:06:00.000-08:00

Fall / Winter is serious film season. Sure, there will still be explosions and Adam Sandler just put on a dress. But there will also be serious films about historic figures, war and dysfunctional families in upcoming films such as “The Descendants”, “War Horse”, “The Iron Lady”, “A Dangerous Method” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”.

Critics are guessing these films to be likely Oscar winners.

They could be great films. But most probably won’t have Christian worldviews. These days, films that do so are in the minority. It wasn’t always so. But great Christian films have always been rare. But through the years, there have been Best Picture Winners that not only deserved to win, but also let people understand the God and His call a little better.

So if you have a little extra time to stream a flick over the holidays, consider my TIME FIVE CHISTIAN(ISH) BEST PICTURE WINNERS:

5) 2003’s LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING

This film doesn’t an explicit Christian message. But it is based on a series of novels written by one of the most prominent Christian writers, J. R. R. Tolkien. Of course, this films and its two predecessors (2001’Ss FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS and 2002’s THE TWO TOWERS) present a Biblical view of good and evil. But one of the things that I’ve always found most encouraging about the film is the characters of the hobbits, Biblo and Samwise. They are models of humility, gentleness and self-sacrifice, living out the Sermon on the Mount in ways that is rarely seen in human characters.
(Rated PG-13 for violence.)

4) 1984’s AMADEUS

This film tells the story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart whose musical gift is envied by Antonio Salieri. Salieri argues with God that he is more worthy of the gift because he is a more righteous man. The film teaches that with God’s gifts and grace, “dissevering’s got nothing to do with it” (to qoute Clint Eastwood in that other Best Picture winner, UNFORGIVEN.)
(Rated R for nudity and sexual suggestions.)

3) 1981’s CHARIOTS OF FIRE.

Tells the true story of Eric Liddell, a man who ran in the Olympics before serving as a missionary in China. When he ran, he “felt God’s pleasure”. What do you do that allows you to feel the same?
(Rated PG for I’m not sure exactly what.)

2) 1966’s A MAN FOR ALL SEASON
Sir Thomas Moore, like Eric Liddell, faced a moral choice that was made before the nation and the world. But Moore faced his choice with his life and the line. Robert Bolt’s screenplay, based on his play, presents an elegant and passionate battle between following God or Caesar.

1) 1959’s BEN HUR
You could argue whether a couple of the above are truly “Christian” films. But since this one is subtitled “A Story of the Christ”…
Ben Hur is a Jewish prince who pursues a path of revenge. But crossing paths with Jesus of Nazareth turns him in the direction of forgiveness. (As a bonus, there is a chariot race that is arguably the best action sequence in the history of film.)

Honorable mention to 1944’s GOING MY WAY and 1965’s SOUND OF MUSIC for their positive presentations of priests and nuns. (Though SofM’s song “Something Good” is theologically wretched.) Happy viewing.

Favorite Stars Who Stopped Making Good Films in the Last Millenium

2011-10-28T04:46:00.000-07:00

WOODY ALLEN is a different kind of case. For a while in the '80's I saw and loved everything he made. He is still doing work many critics admire, such as this year's "Midnight in Paris".
But Allen's off screen behavior has been so repugnant, I've had a difficult time enjoying any of his work. This is especially true when he is on screen (such as in "Scoop", which reminded me of something that is scooped off the sidewalk.)

I find many of the remarks he's made about religion and politics (particularly about 9/11) disgusting, but I can separate the art and the artist with these films made well before Bush Vs. Gore.

10) BULLETS OVER BROADWAY (1994) John Cusack (we're back to the beginning of the week) subs for Woody onscreen in this farce about the theater and gangsters. ("Don't speak!")

9) HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986) Michael Caine rightly received an Oscar for his performance in this film, but he couldn't collect in person as he was filming JAWS: THE REVENGE (for which he didn't receive an Oscar.)

7)SLEEPER (1973) Woody is very funny as a man of the '70's who wakes up in s sci-fi future. He makes a very good robot butler.

6) TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN (1969) Yes, I like his early, funny films (along with the aliens in STARDUST MEMORIES.)

5) ZELIG (1983) Allen beat Tom Hanks to Forrest Gump by a decade.

4) BROADWAY DANNY ROSE (1984) One of the few times an Allen film (and the character he protrays) can be described as sweet. Fortunately, its funny as well (especially the shoot out in the helium balloon ware house.)

3) ANNIE HALL (1977) It beat out STAR WARS for the best picture Oscar, and perhaps deserved it. Allen's most creative comic bits (I especially like the grade school students who tell what they will do in later life.)

2) PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO (1985) Woody isn't on screen in this fantasy about a cinematic hero who comes off the big screen to romance an abused wife. Equal parts funny and heart breaking. (Okay, maybe funny gets an edge.) Jeff Daniel's playing the movie star and the screen character is excellent (say, has that SOMETHING WILD star made a good film in the last ten years?)

1) CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (1989) Allen's masterpiece as far as I'm concerned. Explores the questions of what to do when evil prospers and righteousness is punished. Allen asks the right questions in the film. He just seems to have come up with the wrong answers in real life.

Favorite Stars Who Stopped Making Good Films in the Last Millenium

2011-10-27T04:46:00.000-07:00

This one is certainly more of a personal preference, It is even hard for me to believe that once there was a time I looked forward to seeing a film because MELANIE GRIFFITH was in it. Like Sly Stallone, she made some bad films good.
But for the last ten years, that has not been the case. It's not just because she's a woman getting older. Age has not stopped Siggy Weaver or Michelle Pfeiffer (how does she manage all those 'f's in her name) from being pleasures to see on the screen. Scary plastic surgery may have something to do with it, but MG became a warning sign in the credits.

Now the field was thinner for ten good films than it was with the week's earlier choices... So I included some of her bad films that are true guilty pleasures, largely because of Ms. Griffith's presence.

10) CHERRY 2000 (1987) My wife and I are lonely fans of this sci-fi post-apocalytic epic about Melanie helping a poor schlub fine an android love in the forbidden zone. She shows some real action chops in this cheese fest.

9) RKO 281 (1999) Sure, it's made for TV, but this is the last good film MG has made, a film about the making of a great film, CITIZEN KANE. MG played Marion Davies, an actress from history who surely has no parallel in the utterly fictional KANE.

8) THE DROWNING POOL (1975) A sequel to Paul Newman's great detective classic, HARPER.

7) NOBODY'S FOOL (1994) After many years, she again teamed with Paul Newman in Robert Benson's fine drama.

6) STORMY MONDAY (1988) A good British noir, without a doubt, Sting's best film.

5)BODY DOUBLE (1984) Griffith is quite good as Holly Body (no, this is not a James Bond film) in Brain De Palma's horror/action film set in a quite sleazy Hollywood.

4) NIGHT MOVES (1975) Griffith caught the attention of many critics and Gene Hackman's detective character in this fine film from Arthur Penn.

3) SMILE (1975) How could I not mention this classic Micheal Ritchie satire of beauty pageants? After all, it was filmed in my home town, Santa Rosa, CA.

2) WORKING GIRL (1988) This was Melanie Griffith's great star turn (her best chance for an Oscar, it really could have happened). She was such fun as a secretary who becomes an executive with the support of Harrison Ford (and in spite of Sig Weaver). Classic Mike Nichols comedy.

1) SOMETHING WILD (1986) This Jonathan Demme film is one of my all time favorites. It starts as a comedy and then Ray Liotta's incredible performance turns the film very dark. But Griffith is fun, sexy and cute and this is the film that made me love her (at least until the Y2K bug did not end the world as we know it.)

Favorite Stars Who Stopped Making Good Films in the Last Millenium

2011-10-26T04:43:00.000-07:00

This is a particularly frustrating case, because I have no idea why he hasn't made good films for the last decade. Part of John Cusack's charm was in his youth and the charm that wasn't taken by age has been lost in a self-seriousness that might possibly come from his politics. Ford's age keeps him from doing action like he did and he seems to have gotten lazy.

But STEVE MARTIN's creative juices are still flowing. He's writing good novels and great short humor pieces. He's still funny on talk shows and variety shows. I loved his banjo album, "The Crow". So maybe his creativity is just flowing in different directions. And yet he's made not one but two Pink Panther films. Really?

Anyway, on to the films of Steve Martin I love (and I'm not including cameos in "The Muppet Movie" and "Little Shop of Horrors".)

10) "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" (1982) Spoofing noir classics proves a challenge, and sometimes the comedy doesn't fit the clips used. But when it does, this collaboration with Carl Reiner works very well.

9) "The Man With Two Brains" (1983) Sadly one of Martin's raunchier films, but it can also be quite funny. Plus, it has a mystery with one of the most unexpected of villain reveals.

8) "All of Me" (1984) I haven't seen this for a long time, but I remember being quite happy to see Martin teamed with one of my other comic idols of youth, Lilly Thomplin.

7) "The Spanish Prisoner" (1997) A rare dramatic role for Martin and he is quite good in this David Mamet con flick.

6) "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" (1988) Funniest scene with a fork ever.

5) "The Jerk" (1979) It was awesome to see the Martin of the comedy albums I'd memorized on the big screen. A bit of a mess, but so many funny bits.

4) "The Three Amigos" (1986) Amigos Martin Short and Chevy Chase also give very funny performances in this variation on "The Seven Samurai". (Chevy's droughts have been longer and deeper than Martin's.)

3) "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" (1987) Great teaming with John Candy in this John Hughes holiday (Thanksgiving) classic.

2) "Bowfinger" (199) Martin's last good film was a great film. One of the best satires of Hollywood.

1) "L.A. Story" Sweet and strange and very funny. It's like a Fellini film, but I like it so much better than any Fellini film. If you didn't know Shakespeare is buried in Los Angeles, you can learn that and so much more from this film.

Favorite Stars Who Stopped Making Good Films in the Last Millenium

2011-10-25T02:23:00.000-07:00

The next on the list is HARRISON FORD.

Not just one of my favorite stars, but several of his films are among the most popular ever made (and a couple of these among the most critically acclaimed.) And it says something that there are several films I like I have to leave off ("Working Girl", the Jack Ryan films and "Air Force One" among them.)

And the films of the last decade have, for the most part, been painful.

10) "Presumed Innocent" (1990) A courtroom drama, that makes the list because of the great twist at the end. (Scary haircut for Ford though. And he plays 'Rusty' Sabich. Rusty?)

9) "The Mosquito Coast" (1986) A rare time when Ford plays a crazy guy, perhaps a bad guy. He did very good work with Peter Weir.

8) "American Graffiti" (1973) A wonderful historic relic that shows that at one time George Lucus could be funny and write human dialogue.

7) "The Fugitive" - (1993) Perhaps the best TV to movie adaptation ever (that competition may not be too rough, but it is a great film.)

6) "Witness" (1985) His other great film with director Weir. Ford was Oscar nominated and deservedly so.

5) "Apocalypse Now" (1979) & "The Conversation" (1974) Okay, the reason I put these films together is because Ford's parts are so small in these two Francis FORD Coppola Best Picture nominees. (And in my opinion, "Apocalypse Now" should certainly have beat "Kramer Vs. Kramer" and more controversially, I think "The Conversation" deserved to beat Coppola's "Godfather II".) It's awesome that Ford was Col. Lucas in "Apocalypse."

4) "Star Wars: A New Hope" (1977) A film I saw many, many times and it made me very, very happy. (Sorry there wasn't room for you, "Return of the Jedi", one of my happiest theater experiences.)

3) "Blade Runner" (1992) Ford may be one of the weakest things in great film, and he is very good. Arguably the best science fiction film ever made.

2) "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) Most of this summer was devoted to the question, "Is Darth Vader really Luke's father?" Because we no longer questioned who was cooler Luke or Han...It was Han by a mile.

1) "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) The best adventure film ever made. I've seen it more than any other film (partly because I worked in a theater that showed it for a year.) I like "Doom" and "Crusade" but the awfulness of "Crystal Skull" almost makes me wish no sequel had been made. But that's not really true. But I do love "Raiders" and hate "Skull".

Favorite Stars Who Stopped Making Good Films in the Last Millenium

2011-10-24T16:22:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that some of my favorite stars of my early years have stopped making anything of value after 2001. This isn't true for all my favorites. Bill Murray and Robert Duval, for instance, have done much quality work since HAL went mad and was disconnected. But I'm going to focus on five stars this week that have sadly stopped making good films by highlighting their best with a Top Ten List (or Top Five if that's all they managed.)

Let's start with JOHN CUSACK

This is a particularly sad case because I love his early films and his latest have been so very bad. ("The Ice Harvest" and "1408" are okay, but their meager achievements are blotted out by "War, Inc." and "Grace is Gone".)

10) "One Crazy Summer" (1986) The film career of director Savage Steve Holland has been light, but glorious.

9) "The Journey of Natty Gann" (1985) A sweet Disney drama (quite a contrast with say #6 on this list.)

8) "Eight Men Out" (1988) John Sayles' telling of the Black Sox Scandal.

7) "Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) Woody Allen directed. (Woody barely avoided a place on this list.)

6) "The Grifters" (1990) A very dark, yet funny, tale, which describes much of Jim Thompson's writings.

5) "High Fidelity" (2000) The last great Cusack film, based on Nick Hornby's novel.

4) "Gross Point Blank" (1997) Now this is what class reunions are supposed to be like.

3) "Being John Malkovich" (1999) One of the strangest films ever made by a major studio. I like it very much.

2) "Better Off Dead" (1985) Savage Steve Holland's Masterpiece

1) "Say Anything" (1989) Cusack's best film, Cameron Crowe's best film and, yes, Ione Skye's best film.

Head Vs. Heart: Moneyball

2011-10-15T05:00:00.000-07:00

Heart vs. Head
You’ve seen variations on this plot before: an established business is disturbed when the hotshot comes in with an emphasis on the bottom line and effectiveness statistics. The newcomer shakes things up, but soon learns that the old timers have a lot of wisdom and the most important element of any business really is heart.
In 1957’s “The Desk Set”, Spencer Tracy tries to bring these new fangled computers to the research department of a television network until Katherine Hepburn shows him that a machine can’t match the heart of a librarian.
In 1986’s slightly racist, “Gung Ho”, Gedde Watanabe tries to turn around an American auto plant with the principles of Japanese efficiency until Michael Keaton shows him that those business models are no match for the heart of the American worker.
Even last year’s “The Company Men” pitted the sinister bottom lined focused Craig T. Nelson in the world of shipping versus Tommy Lee Jones who, once again, values people as people, not as economic units that can be eliminated to help the stock prices. (Not a bad little film, this.)
This year’s “Moneyball” takes some of these same themes into the world of professional baseball. Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) comes to the Oakland A’s and tries to turn around the fortunes of a small market team. The film pits Beane as a manager who values cost cutting, statistics and the bottom line vs. the coaching and scouting staff who value intuition, institutional wisdom and decisions made by the gut.
Except this time, the film gets the audience to root for the guy with the metaphorical slide rules. Beane comes saying he doesn’t care whether a player looks good in a uniform or has “heart”, he just wants to know the player’s on base percentage.
And Beane is forced by the owner’s budget to highly value the bottom line.
Yes, through the film, we see Beane honoring the dignity of players (as a former player himself) and making decisions not at all based on economic factors. But the importance of science, statistics and economics shines through.
One of the most amazing feats of the film is making what on its face is a very dry subject (baseball strategy and building a team) into a very entertaining, funny, and touching film. (A friend of mine, who hates sports, enjoyed the film.) A lot of the credit goes to the script writers, Steven Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”) and Aaron Sorkin (who last year made a topic even more unlikely, the founding of Facebook, into a wonderful film, “The Social Network”.)
Credit must also go to Pitt and Jonah Hill (as his assistant) presenting a highly unlikely partnership that blooms into a wonderful friendship. Readers of the fine book which this film is based on might be surprised by the addition of Beane’s family life, which makes this one of the few father/daughter baseball films.
In the church, I think we are also highly distrustful of those who bring “science” to church policy. When someone brings up church growth studies, many of us are tempted to dismiss such people as unspiritual. Shouldn’t we just close our eyes and let the Spirit lead us by faith?
Why bring management theory into church board meetings? Shouldn’t we rely on Scripture alone?
Yes, Scripture, the leading of the Spirit and prayer should be the primary church decision making.
But if you look at Acts 6: 1-7, you’ll see leaders of the young church in Jerusalem facing the administrative task of feeding people, and they find a solution to the problem that might be encouraged by a MBA.
Even in the church, we need to value the head and the heart.

The Future Through the Eyes of the Past

2011-09-23T20:33:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I was watching the 1987 non-classic Arnold Schwarzenegger science fiction film, “The Running Man”. And no, I’m not proud of this. The film tells the tale of a man in the totalitarian future of 2017 who is unjustly accused of a crime and is therefore sentenced to fight for his life on a gladiatorial TV reality show. Based on a Stephen King story, the film attempts to say profound things about the dangers of voyeuristic media but is chiefly remembered for the being the one place you can see Richard Dawson outside of “Hogan’s Heroes” reruns and “Family Feud” Youtube clips.

But the reason I bring this fairly lame film up is because of a prop used in the film. Again, the film is set thirty years in the future for the filmmakers and is six years in the future for us. There are many scenes of sadistic TV show host Dawson making threats and demands in his phone. So the film’s property master was assigned to make this phone of the future.

The property master had to think about what a phone of the future would look like. He or she came up with a kind of cool design of a thin, white cylinder for the phone. And it’s corded. Yes, this phone of the future is not a cell phone and Dawson is tethered to a 5 foot radius as he plots his nefarious schemes with his evil phone buddies.

The makers of the film didn’t dream of such a thing as a cell phone, or even a cordless one.

This is an interesting thing about science fiction film and literature. It often says more about the time it was written rather than the future. If you watch 1960’s era Star Trek you’ll believe that the future is mini-skirts and sideburns. According to “2001” Pan Am took us on commuter flights to the moon a decade ago -- but sadly, Pan Am is no more.

And “Back to the Future II” says that in three years we’ll still be going to books to look up our sports trivia.

That’s one of the big things the creators of science fiction missed. The internet. With all the whiz-bang rockets, robots and computers envisioned throughout the first ninety percent or so of the twentieth century, no one imagined what has become a central facet of modern life.

All this makes me think of heaven. Yeah, it’s a long and winding road from Arnold schlock films to the Celestial City, but I think it’s worth the trip.

Those who write about the future are limited by the vision of the present. In 1638, Francis Godwin, the Bishop of Hereford, made the bold imaginative step of writing about a trip to the moon. But the mode of transportation of the hero of the tale is a chariot pulled by geese. It wasn’t in Godwin to imagine rockets.

In the same way, we have a difficult time imagining heaven. As Christians we might inwardly mock the Muslim vision of heaven for men as the Prohibition singles bar where seven babes are waiting.

But is our vision much better?

We think of seeing loved ones or a grand banquet or a big mansion and Scripture allows for those images. But there will be more than we can imagine.

C. S. Lewis said our attempts to envision heaven are like a little boy who’s told about the intimate love between a man and woman. The boy wonders if chocolate is involved.

A simple rule about Heaven: Jesus in John 14:2 said that He is going to prepare a place for us. He said in John 10:10 that He came to bring us life to the full. Whatever we think of as glorious in Heaven will be a mere shadow of what is to come. It will be so much better than we can think.

But to close on a completely different note: we are just eight years from the time of “Blade Runner”. Where’s my hover car?

New Book at Amazon

2011-09-23T03:04:00.000-07:00

Here's "King Con" http://www.amazon.com/King-Bill-Warthog-Mysteries-Anderson/dp/1584110945/ref=pd_sim_b1

The Sacred Dump

2011-09-14T16:05:00.000-07:00

(I found this little devotional I wrote after a missions trip to Mexico)

Unwrapping the pieces of sliced cheese, I looked for a place to throw away the plastic wrappers.

“Throw ‘em on the ground,” Dave said.

Dave was the local Vineyard worker who had taken our mission team to the Mazatlan Dump. We were making cheeseburgers for scavenger workers at the dump. Dozens of men and women every day sort through the dump for trash to sell; cardboard and plastic.

Dave told us when they first began to preparing hot lunches for the workers, they used to be mobbed. They were afraid that the food would run out. But now the people waited patiently until the food was ready because they had learned there would always be plenty for everyone.

Anyway, back to the unwrapping the cheese thing; it was shocking to realize that we could just drop the plastic wrappers on the ground. Because we were…you know… at the dump. And it’s OK to litter at the dump, because it’s not littering, because the dump is the place litter is ultimately supposed to go.

For me, that makes the dump a sacred place -- or at least an image of a sacred place. That sacred place is the cross where we can drop our garbage, our sin. Colossians 2:13b & 2:14b explains, “God made you alive in Christ, He forgave us all our sins…nailing it to the cross.”

We don’t need to hold on to our sins, we can dump them at the cross of Christ.

"King Con" This Month?

2011-09-04T19:08:00.000-07:00

I said last month that the newest Bill the Warthog was coming out at the end of August. Let's try September...
http://www.christianbook.com/king-con-dean-anderson/9781584110941/pd/11094X?item_code=WW&netp_id=939329&event=ESRCG&view=details

The Sistine Chapel Plot

2011-09-04T19:05:00.000-07:00

(This story appeared in Brio.)

I started dreading art class. It’s weird, because the same things had happened in biology and Civics, but I never expected to enjoy biology, and in political science there was a chance to argue back. It was different in art class; I didn’t expect to debate my faith in there.
I’ve always enjoyed art. I’ve wanted to be a cartoonist for a long time. I liked being able to draw and not get in trouble for doodling. (I can’t tell you all the times Mrs. Alvarez has given me grief for doodling in the margins in English.) I was even enjoying the history part of the class. It was cool getting to see the work of great artists of the past. So you can see how one of my favorite things was getting spoiled. It was like finding dill pickles in my chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream.
The worst thing was, we couldn’t argue back. When I tried to give the other side, Mr. Jeffries would say, “This isn’t the time or place to discuss these issues. This is an art class.” While showing slides from his trip to Europe and lecturing about the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, he did it again.
“This is, of course, the famous image of God creating Adam, their hands touching. It makes one wonder what Michelangelo might have painted today; perhaps a dramatic abstract of the primordial ooze. He was a brilliant man, and surely if he lived today, he would concur with scientists that there is no Creator, that we are not here by plan or design, but we and this world are the result of purely natural and random causes.
“But let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Though we can no longer believe the fairy tales this work of art is based on, we can still appreciate its beauty and craftsmanship. Yes, Paige?”
“Mr. Jeffries,” I began, “You can’t talk about scientists as if they have one viewpoint. There are many scientists that believe that God...”
“Paige, this is an art class, we don’t need to go into those issues. Now you will see in this next photograph...”
See what I mean? It’s one thing to hear we’re just a result of monkeys learning to stand in biology class, you expect that. And in Civics, Ms. Daniels talked about the dangers of the religious right, but she gave us Christians in the class a chance to have our say.
Things seemed even worse when I talked to Elizabeth. She’d started going to youth group with me. It seemed like she had been listening during the Bible studies, but she told me she was going to quit going. I asked her why.
“I don’t know, Paige. I’m beginning to think the stuff they talk about at your church is just a load of... You know.”
“What do you mean?”
“I’ve been thinking about some of the things that Mr. Jeffries talked about. Like about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition where the Christians killed everyone who disagreed with them, and how Christians have tried to ban great art through the ages. And the stuff he was talking about the other day. How we’re probably just here because of random chance like the scientists say.”
I tried to tell her the other side of it, but she didn’t really seem to hear me. After all, I’m just a student, and Mr. Jeffries has been to graduate school and must know more than me.
That was the last straw. I didn’t like that garbage Mr. Jeffries was saying, but I wasn’t falling for it. But if Elizabeth was, others maybe were too. So I needed to do something. And that’s when I started to get the Idea.
I’m not saying the Idea was a good idea. I’m not recommending anyone do what I did. I’m still paying for it. That’s why I won’t explain how I did what I did, because I don’t want anyone else to do what I did. I’ll say this much. It involved paint and brushes and pencils and charcoal and a ladder and duct tape on a window lock and an alarm clock set to go off early on a Saturday morning. But let’s just jump to Monday morning in Mr. Jeffries’ class, third period.
“Before we get into today’s material, I suppose we must discuss what I’m sure is on top of all your minds, or least above your heads. So everyone may look up.”
Most everyone was already looking up, of course. In section of the ceiling above Mr. Jeffries’ desk was a waterfall scene, with a light fixture as the sun. There were also a couple of cows, an elephant, a lion and a tapir, and a naked man and woman behind strategic bushes.
In the middle of the ceiling there were pencil sketches of a hospital and a college. Next to the hospital was a sketch of Jesus putting his hand on a leper (which, I’ll admit, had a rather graphic depiction of decaying flesh.) And next to the college was a sketch of Jesus talking to a crowd and monks copying a Bible. On the other third of the ceiling there was…nothing. (If you guessed that the vandal became nervous when she thought she heard someone coming, so she took off before finishing…good guess.)
“Now I’m going to ask this once. Does any one know what happened here?”
I gulped, and raised my hand.
“Yes, Paige.”
“I’ve been thinking, Mr. Jeffries, maybe these works on the ceiling are accidents. People paint in here, so maybe paint has just randomly splashed up to the ceiling, and that’s the result. It might just be a cosmic accident.”
“Paige, do you really expect me to believe that random splashes caused this? There was planning and design that went into this graffiti. I believe, Paige, it was your planning and design.”
“Yes, it was. And I’m planning to pay for the damage and doing detention and all that. But I just want to know why you’re willing to admit there was planning and design involved with what’s above us, but not in the world all around us.”
“I see. So you were making a point that the world has a Creator. Obviously the reason you drew the nature scene. How droll. But why the pictures of the buildings?”
“Those are hospitals and universities. A lot of times this year, you’ve mentioned evil things Christians have done, like the bloodshed during the Crusades of the Middle Ages; things that went against Christ’s teaching. But aside from art, you don’t talk about all the good the Church has done through the centuries. A majority of the first hospitals and universities in the world were founded by followers of Jesus.
“I’m sorry for going all Michelangelo on the ceiling. But you’ve made a lot of snide remarks about Christianity this year, and I wanted to respond. And you’ve said we should communicate through our art. That’s what I was trying to do.”
“That will be all, Paige. Now, if we’re finished with religious studies, let’s return to the Renaissance.”
OK, so I didn’t score a lot of points with Mr. Jeffries that day. It probably didn’t help my grade, my bank account took a hit, and I’m just finishing the detentions. But Elizabeth is coming to youth group again.

Lightening Over Water

2011-08-22T23:37:00.001-07:00

They say when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. In that way, it makes sense that when film director Nicholas Ray (“Rebel Without a Cause”, “King of Kings”) learned he had terminal cancer, he decided to make a movie about it. He asked his friend, German film director Wim Wenders (“Wings of Desire”, “The Buena Vista Social Club”) to assist him.
Together, they do make a film, “Lightening Over Water” (1980).
Ray wants to make a fictional film about a painter. A painter with cancer without much time left to live. This painter achieved great fame and wealth with his early paintings, but the painting he made in his later years would not sell. So the painter robs his own paintings from museums and replaces them with “forgeries”, his own paintings recreated. Really, the artist is trying to recapture his youth, his early acclaim, and his self-esteem.
Wenders assesses the physical condition of his friend, and knows that such a project would be impossible. He agrees to make a film with him, a documentary of Ray’s last days. But it is not a pure documentary. Along with footage of Ray’s day to day health struggles, conversations between the directors and such outings as a lecture about film that Ray gives at Vassar University, there are fictional vignettes added (such as Ray playing a scene as a modern King Lear.) Some of the ‘documentary footage’ seems staged as well.
As Ray approaches death, he seems concerned about proving that his life and work had significance. It’s something that many of us wonder about.
Wenders wonders if he is helping or hurting his friend with the draining work of writing, directing and ‘acting’ in a film when his strength is depleted. He wonders if he is putting the film itself before his friend. (I don’t think that dilemma is unique. I think there is often a danger in ministry of designing programs to help people, and then we become more concerned with the programs than with the people they were designed to help.)
There are humorous and tender moments in the film. But ultimately, it made me sad. For Ray faced death without reference to the hope from in Jesus Christ. It could be that Ray did have some kind of religious faith; but it that is so, it was not a part of the film.
Ray seemed to face death with no assurance that there was meaning to his life, or more to hope for after death.
Recently, the great theologian and writer, John Stott passed away. And I was struck watching the film how different this man’s passing would have been. I just finished reading John Stott’s book, “Why I Am A Christian” (Inter Varsity Press, 2003). Stott argues that the very human needs of significance and transcendence can only be met in a relationship to Jesus Christ.
Stott argues that all of us fear death (he quotes Woody Allen who said, “I’m not afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”) Further, Stott argues that no one who is in fear, is truly free; only in Christ, in His resurrection, can be found hope of overcoming death and ultimate extinction.
(“Lightening Over Water” is not rated, but it does include strong language and brief nudity.)

Random Top Ten List: Favorite Classical Composers

2011-08-09T04:02:00.000-07:00

The classical station I listen to, KDFC, is doing a readers poll of their 40 favorite classical (symphonic) composers. They are now down to #6 and are just wrong. Of course, the starting list was wrong because it didn't include Virgil Thompson ("The River".) So here are my top ten:

10) John Williams (KDFC ranking, #13) Maybe he shouldn't be on the list. Perhaps he should be on pop rather than classical. But since he's on there list, he's on mine. Love "Star Wars", "Superman", "Schindler's List", the neglected "1941" and so many more. But nothing beats the "Raiders March".

9) Johann Strauss II (not yet listed on ranking) Because the Blue Danube takes me back to skating at the Sparky Schultz rink in Jr. High.

8) Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (not yet ranked, must be top three) During the Disco era I bought an album of his music "Eine Kleine Nacht Fever".

7) Peter Tchaikosky (ranked #7 on KDFC list, WE HAVE A MATCH!) Love the cannons in the 1812, but my favorite is "Sleeping Beauty". Thank goodness Disney had the smarts to use it for the animated feature.

6) Johann Sebastian Bach (not yet listed) - Of course we are grateful for his fathering P.D.Q. Bach, along with so many others, but I truly appreciate the Godliness of his music. "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" is possibly the single most beautiful piece of music composed on this planet.

5) George Gershwin (ranked #11) - Okay, I probably have him here for "Someone to Watch Over Me" more than the "classical" pieces like "Rhapsody in Blue" (which I also love.) Sue me.

4) Felix Mendelssohn (ranked #15) - Love many of his works (like the Scottish) but he is here because of Symphony #5, the Reformation (which uses "A Mighty Fortress".) I'm a sucker for hymns and spirituals in compositions. (As can be seen in my next choice.)

3) Aaron Copland (ranked #18) - He brought vivid images to mind with his music, such as "Billy the Kid" and "Rodeo" but never better than "Appalachian Spring". (A cherished memory of torturing Kirk Nystrom with a Copland album I bought in Canada.)

2) George Frederick Handel (ranked a shockingly low #17) - Love the Fireworks and the Water, but when you're talking Handel, you're talking "The Messiah". Please stand.

1) Ludwig von Beethoveen (not yet ranked, but must be in top two) - I'm sure the droogs of "Clockwork Orange" agree with me. Sheer greatness we're talking here, in all the symphonies especially. Love the icon which is the 5th and the beauty of the chorus in th 9th, but the sense of humor of the 7th makes it my favorite.

So, I'll keep listening KDFC, though your readers are just wrong.

Christian Book Has the New Bill the Warthog

2011-08-01T08:53:00.000-07:00

"King Con" is now available for order, delivery at the end of August:

http://www.christianbook.com/king-con-dean-anderson/9781584110941/pd/11094X?item_code=WW&netp_id=939329&event=ESRCG&view=details

Tree of Life

2011-07-21T07:27:00.001-07:00

Sometimes expectations make all the difference. If you go to a museum with the expectation of seeing representational art, pretty pictures of landscapes and beautiful people, and instead find abstract combinations of colors and shapes, disappointment ensues. If you hadn’t gone in expecting a Rubens, you might have really liked that Jackson Pollack.

All this is to say, do not watch Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life” with an expectation of a summer blockbuster. Or even a straightforward narrative. The film is an impressionistic work that doesn’t just move in and out of the character of Jack O’Brien from the present to his birth and his childhood in the early ‘60’s in Waco, Texas; we also see the creation of the universe and quite possibly the characters in the afterlife.

The film jumps from domestic scenes of family tension to static shots of great natural beauty to flights of fantasy. So if you just go into a film wanting to see “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy marries girl” or “man robs bank, cop chases robber, big shoot out”… Disappointment ensues. In fact, some theaters screening this film in some parts of the country have posted a sign saying, “This film does not follow a conventional narrative structure” to cut down on demands for refunds.

These tendencies are not new to Malick. His first films, “Badlands” (1973) about a less glamorous version of Bonnie and Clyde and “Days of Heaven” (1978) about farmers at the beginning of the 20th Century, featured leisurely meditations on natural beauty -- but within a traditional narrative structure.

Writer/director Malick took a couple decades off before returning with “The Thin Red Line” (1998) about the Pacific during the Second World War, a film that began Malick’s downplaying of narrative. “A New World” (2005) about Pocahontas and John Smith had even less narrative drive, and with “The Tree of Life”, Malick seems to work without traditional cinematic storytelling altogether.

But if one goes in without expectations of a traditional narrative, there are treasures in this film. It beautifully captures what it was like growing up in a certain time and place. Even more, it captures remembering growing up. There are wonderful, natural performances by the children, especially by Hunter McCracken as young Jack. Jessica Chastain is luminous as Jack’s mother and Brad Pitt gives one of his best performances as a father giving his all but perhaps not giving where he should.

What I appreciated most about the film was the consideration of Biblical and theological issues. The film opens with verses from the book of Job, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? …while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Chapter 38, verses 4 & 7.) We then see the characters dealing with loss as Job did, but we are given the context of the Big Bang through the dinosaurs. It is important to remember that God knows our grief, but He views it in a much larger context.

We also see Jack choosing between the path of Nature (what Paul refers to as the Natural Man) as represented by his father and Grace as represented through his mother and brother. Jack even paraphrased the Apostle Paul from Romans 7:15 that he does what he does not want to do. We do see Jack’s progress to finding salvation through grace.

If you are open to a different movie experience, you may want to see the impressionistic work of Terrence Malick. Or this summer you have lots of opportunities to see superheroes and stuff blow up real good. Just know what to expect.

Random Top Ten List: Favorite Jimmy Stewart Movies

2011-07-09T17:11:00.000-07:00

10) "The Philadelphia Story"

It's odd to start this list with one of my least favorite Stewart performances in a movie a love. Stewart could play a tough guy, but he doesn't seem like the hard bitten reporter. He has a couple of good scenes (love the what a gentlemen does speech), but Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn and even Virginia Weidler (the kid) out shine him. He got an Oscar for this film that was probably a make-up for "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

9) "Winchester '73"

Before Sam Peckinpah, these Westerns that Anthony Mann did with Stewart are what people thought of when they talked about "Adult Westerns". Stewart really is a tough guy in these films. (He was, of course, a tough guy in real life. He was a decorated pilot serving in WW II, and I believe in Korea and Vietnam.)

8) "Harvey"

When I worked on my bad Stewart impression, I went to Elwood P. Dowd and his wonderful speech about how he met his 6 foot rabbit friend.

7) "The Man Who Knew Too Much"

Stewart made four films with Alfred Hitchcock, tying with Cary Grant for the most leading man performances with Hitch. This film is one of those rare remakes that's better than the first. Stewart is very good (though he seems like an old father.)

6) "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

The film Stewart should have got an Oscar for this film, especially for the filibuster scene. One of the most patriotic films ever made (and I mean that in a very good way.) Those Republican, Capra and Stewart, worked well together.

5) "Vertigo"

"Rope" is the only Hitch/Stewart collaboration that won't make the list (though I like "Rope" very much.) "Vertigo" makes the top ten all time film lists of many critics. It captures the state of a dream, a nightmare.

4) "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"

Getting to see John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart work together is a very happy thing. This is the go to film for impressions trying to do either actor. Also, fairly profound meditation on history and legend.

3) "Anatomy of a Murder"

Probably my favorite courtroom drama. Sordid material of rape, handled with in a very mature fashion by Otto Preminger. Stewart's ah shucks country lawyer is smarter than everyone else thinks he is, but not as smart as he thinks he is.

2) "Rear Window"

Not quite my favorite Hitch film (but easily in the top five), but Stewart is great as a photographer stuck in a wheelchair in his apartment. With the limitations of movement, Stewart still delivers a powerful performance. And Grace Kelly is beautiful.

1) "It's a Wonderful Life"

Favorite film ever. 'Nuff said.

How Bill Book Covers Are Made

2011-07-08T15:22:00.000-07:00

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvekADyQHFk

Interview With Me

2011-07-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

(Thanks, Donna, for leaving out the truly incriminating quotes)
http://nancyellenhird.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/dean-a-anderson-an-interview-by-donna-fujimoto/

Random Top Ten List: Cop Shows

2011-06-02T02:49:00.000-07:00

Note this says Cop Shows, so it must focus on policeman. Sorry Rockford, sorry Monk, you are not on the payroll to protect and serve. (By the way, if this was crime shows, you would have a shot, Jim. But then, so would Tony Soprano. Adian…not so much.) JUSTIFIED would certainly be contending in the top five, but I wasn’t sure if a Federal Marshall counts as a cop.

10) DRAGNET – If you go back and watch a lot of old dramas today, they just don’t hold up. I’ve gone back to favorites from childhood like Starsky and Hutch and the old Hawaii 5-0 and they seem so hokey. They follow one story line doggedly, the writing is pedestrian and acting (particularly by the secondary players) can be really stiff.
The great thing about DRAGNET is it was corny when it aired. Back in the day people made fun of the wooden line delivery and leaden pace. Which is why it was awesome then and is now; because the stories were true, it took something special to make everything seem so fake. I watched the color version with Harry Morgan, which had the incredible ‘Blue Boy’ drug episode. And if I’m not mistaken, creator/star Jack Webb voted Republican.

9) LUTHER – No, this is not a show about a German theologian who fights crime on the side. Idris Elba (Stringer Bell from THE WIRE) stars in this BBC show about a British police officer who, well, you know, plays by his own rules and lives on the edge. Which has been done a thousand times (best on the big screen with Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry), and if that’s all there was, I’d still watch because Elba is very good. But what makes this show stand out is the help he receives from a killer he couldn’t get the goods on, Alice Morgan (Ruth Wilson). She is scary, funny and unpredictable.
If I had a chance to see more than 6 episodes of this show, it might rank higher. (I don’t get BBC America, so I’m still waiting for the DVDs to get the Season 1 cliff hanger resolved.)

8) LIFE – As annoying as it is to have a favorite canceled, sometimes it is not all bad. This NBC LA cop show about a policeman falsely convicted of murder, released from prison with a promotion to detective and a really big cash settlement, may have been improved by not having a chance to linger and let its personal mysteries fester too long (see Monk.)
Damien Lewis, who was wonderful in Band of Brothers, is wonderful in this show. His quirks, such as an anger management problem that he tries to handle with a Buddhist self-help tape, come across as real and not gimmicks. And the procedural plots that don’t connect to the big mystery of who framed Charlie Crews for murder are usually clever and creative. A strong support cast that continues to pop up on other shows.

7) MIAMI VICE – There’s something to be said for style over substance, and Michael Mann said it with this show. The show blended great camera work, settings, clothes and music into something special. Has there been another time than when the show use “I Can Feel It Coming” that Phil Collins has been truly cool? (Don’t misunderstand. I like Phil Collins. I have two ears and a heart. Just not sure cool at any other time has been the word to describe him.)
Don Johnson as Crocket with the boat, the car and the alligator…Well, I wanted to be him. That’s why I bought the white jacket. Didn’t buy the loafers, though. And hurrah for its advocacy of letting the shave wait a couple of days. (And what other show has had Sheena Easton and Penn Juliette as guest stars?)

6) BARNEY MILLER – I read someplace (probably the TV Guide) that many policemen consider this the most realistic cop show. It was a sitcom, rather than a drama, but it rarely became too outlandish. Hal Linden as Barney seemed to be the boss anyone would want (a father figure as well.) The supporting cast was very funny. Abe Vigoda was ancient as the time (and yet is still going and was the breakout star (even getting a spin-off, “Fish”.)
But I really liked Jack Soo who raised sloth to an art. Steve Landesberg’s Dietrich was one of the most likable intellectuals on TV. But my favorite was Max Gail’s Wojo, who was dumb, maybe, but never as dumb as you thought he was.

5) THE SHIELD - I was pretty shocked when I watched the pilot of this FX show when Michael Chiklis as the anti-hero Vic Mackey stops straddling the line between legal and illegal and just strides right over it. This show pushed the violence and language content rules to the limit, but usually for good reasons and for strong payoffs.
Loved the supporting cast, especially CCH Pounder as the detective who doesn’t trust Mac or his strike force, Jay Karnes as Dutch and Wally Goggins as Shane. I didn’t see the full series when it aired, so I’m trying to catch up now.

4) COLUMBO – Why would you want to watch a mystery when you find out who did in at the very opening? Peter Falk kept you watching, not just for an hour, but for up to twice that long in these NBC mystery movies (moving later to ABC.)
I gave a speech in a Junior College speech class on doing a Columbo impression, using the dirty trench coat, cigar, slumped posture and catch phrases (“Just one more thing”.) But Falk was always better than his imitators.
There was a bit of a class warfare tension going on with the show. Killers thought their status, wealth, fame, etc. would keep them from justice, but the Lieutenant always showed that just wasn’t so. And the guest murderers, Faye Dunaway, Patrick McGoohan, William Shatner, Jack Cassidy, Robert Conrad…. Were always great.

3) THE WIRE - There are many who argue that this is flat out the best television show ever made. I won't argue. I like it very much. But I still enjoy two cop shows more.

2) HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS – David Simon created this show as well as The Wire and set them both in Baltimore, which made one very much only want to visit that city on TV. One of the great props on the show was a white board. If a murder was unsolved, it was on the board in red ink and when it was solved, it was changed to black ink. Some murders on the show always stayed in the red.
There were many great characters and actors on the show, but Andre Braugher’s Frank Pembleton stood out. Perhaps one of the best combination of actor and character ever on television (Falk/Columbo is close, though.) The story arc of Frank overcoming a stroke to work again was heartbreaking and funny and great television.

1) HILL STREET BLUES – Maybe it was when I saw this show. During my college and seminary years, this was sometimes the only show I made a point to watch. Thursdays at 10 PM on NBC, I was there. I loved Furillo, Washington, Coffee, Bates, Ranko, Bobby,Phil and Howard and Henry. And Belker. Especially Belker when he growled and pounced and used his favorite invective, “Hairball”. Never could stand Fay Furillo, though. The one thing that could have improved the show was a different actress to play Frank’s ex, but I guess no show is perfect. But the Hill came so very close.
I was so happy to meet Dennis Franz and be able to thank him for his part in making Hill Street Blues. If by some weird chance, anyone else connected with this show reads this, thank you, too. (Sorry, Ms. Bosson.)

A Different 100 Books List

2011-05-29T16:49:00.000-07:00

People are always making those lists of books one should read to be literate. I'd like to make it clear I've read all of these books.
How literate are you? See how many these of these works you’ve read. If you have read it, put the title in bold (or put an ‘S’ after the title for ‘Smart’), if you started it and didn’t finish put the title in italics (or put an ‘GI’ after the title for ‘Good Intentions’) and leave it alone (or put an ‘I’ after the title for ‘Lame’.)

1) “The Haunted Hall” – Partridge Family Novel Tie-in #2 (Author Unknown)
2) “Star Trek Memories” – William Shatner
3) “Star Trek Movie Memories” – William Shatner
4) “The World of Star Trek” – David Gerold
5) “Star Trek 1” – James Blish
6) “How to Care for Your Monster” – Norman Bridwell
7) “Where’s Spot” – Eric Hill
8) “Good Dog, Carl” – Alexandra Day
9) “Carl’s Afternoon in the Park” – Alexandra Day
10) “Carl Goes Shopping” – Alexandra Day
11) “Carl’s Christmas” – Alexandra Day
12) “I Shouldn’t Even Be Doing This” – Bob Newhart
13) “There’s a Monster at the End of this Book” – Jon Stone
14) “I Can’t Wait Until Christmas” – Linda Lee Maifar
15) “Spy vs. Spy: The Complete Casebook” – Antonio Prohias
16) “Attack of the Deranged Killer Mutant Monster Snow Goon” – Bill Waterson
17) “The Revenge of the Baby Sat” – Bill Waterson
18) “Goodnight Moon” – Margaret Wise Brown
19) “It’s a Magical World” – Bill Waterson
20) “Scientific Progress Goes Boink” – Bill Waterson
21) “Happiness is a Warm Puppy” – Charles Shultz
22) “Peanuts Cook Book” – Charles Shultz
23) “Miss Suzy” – Miriam Young
24) “Frank and Ernest” – Alexandra Day
25) “There’s a Stewardess Flying This Plane: Films of the 1970’s” – Ron Hogan
26) “Little Bear” – Maurice Sendak
27) “A Kiss for Little Bear” – Maurice Sendak
28) “Chicken Soup with Rice” – Maurice Sendak
29) “The Great Brain” – John Fitzgerald
30) “More Adventures of the Great Brain” – John Fitzgerald
31) “Me and My Little Brain” – John Fitzgerald
32) “The Great Brain at the Academy” – John Fitzgerald
33) “The Great Brain Reforms” – John Fitzgerald
34) “Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective” – Donald Sobol
35) “Film Flubs: The Sequel” – Bill Givens
36) “Encyclopedia Brown Saves the Day” – Donald Sobol
37) “Full Metal Trench Coat” – Dean Anderson
38) “Guarding the Tablets of Stone” – Dean Anderson
39) “Attack of the Mutant Fruit” – Dean Anderson
40) “The Bogus Mind Machine” – Dean Anderson
41) “If Chins Could Kill” – Bruce Campbell
42) “Just One More Thing” – Peter Falk
43) “So Far…” – Kelsey Grammer
44) “Camp Foxtrot” – Bill Amend
45) “101 Places Not to See Before You Die” – Catherine Price
46) “Foxtrot: En Masse” – Bill Amend
47) “At Least This Place Sells T-Shirts” – Bill Amend
48) “His Code Name is Fox” – Bill Amend
49) “The Return of the Lone Iguana” – Bill Amend
50) “Black Bart Says Draw” – Bill Amend
51) “He Saw, She Saw” – Dean Anderson
52) “Barnaby Goes Wild” – Gary Richmond
53) “Hop on Pop” – Dr. Seuss
54) “Oh the Thinks You Can Think!” – Dr. Seuss
55) “The Golden Turkey Awards” – Michael Medved
56) “The Butter Battle Book” – Dr. Seuss
57) “The Foot Book” – Dr. Seuss
58) “Happy Birthday to You” – Dr. Seuss
59) “Fox in Socks” – Dr. Seuss
60) “The Making of Star Trek” – Stephen Whitfield
61) “Everything and a Kite” – Ray Romano
62) “The Movie Brats” – Michael Pye
63) “The Best of 50’s TV” – Michael McCall
64) “A Year at the Movies” – Kevin Murphy
65) “The Great Movies” – William Bayer
66) “The Sneetches” – Dr. Seuss
67) “Yertle the Turtle” – Dr. Seuss
68) “I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew” – Dr. Seuss
67) “Buffy the Vampire: Pop Quiz” – Cynthia Boris
68) “Sunnydale High Yearbook” – Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder
69) “The Disney Films” – Leonard Maltin
70) “Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint” – Jay Williams
71) “Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine” – Jay Williams
72) “Danny Dunn and the Heat Ray”- Jay Williams
73) “Cake Wrecks” – Jen Yates
74) “The Adventures of Homer Fink” – Sidney Offit
75) “Matthew Looney’s Voyage to Earth” – Jerome Beatty Jr.
76) “Martin Luther Had a Wife” – William Petersen
77) “The Far Side Gallery” – Gary Larsen
78) “The Far Side Gallery 2” – Gary Larsen
79) “Babies and Other Hazards of Sex” – Dave Barry
80) “The Far Side Gallery 4” – Gary Larsen
81) “The Far Side Gallery 5” – Gary Larsen
82) “The Prehistory of the Far Side” – Gary Larsen
83) “Don Martin Steps Out” – Don Martin
84) “Don Martin Drops Out” – Don Martin
85) “Don Martin Bounces Back” – Don Martin
86) “Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions” – Al Jaffe
87) “Cruel Shoes” – Steve Martin
88) “Horror in the Cinema” – Ivan Butler
89) “The Magic School Bus Inside the Human Body” – Joanna Cole
90) “The Magic School Bus on the Ocean Floor” – Joanna Cole
91) “The Magic School Bus in the Time of Dinosaurs” – Joanna Cole
92) “Jay Leno’s Headlines: Book 1” – Jay Leno
93) “Late Night with David Letterman’s Top Ten Lists” - Dave Letterman
94) “Where’s Waldo?” – Martin Handford
95) “One Hundred and One Elephant Jokes” – Robert Blake
96) “101 Uses for a Dead Cat” – Simon Bond
97) “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” – Laura Numeroff
98) “Growing Up Brady” – Barry Williams
99) “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche” – Bruce Feirstein
100) The Title of “Finnegans Wake” - James Joyce

Win, Win

2011-05-15T21:40:00.000-07:00

I wrestled in Junior High and High School. To say that wrestling did not receive the same kind of attention as football or basketball would be an understatement. We didn’t get as many fans as track or girl’s volleyball. Maybe even the Dungeons and Dragons Club.

During my Piner High years, the drill team was forced to attend. On more than one occasion I heard the reaction of certain girls on the team to the sweaty, six minutes of grabbling on the mat as “yuck” rather than “yeah”.

So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the film, “Win, Win”, which is partially about high school wrestling has not done boffo box office. But it is a good film and only partially about wresting.

Mainly it is the story of a struggling lawyer, Mike Flarety, (Paul Giamatti of the excellent “John Adams” mini-series) who takes on the guardianship of an old man, Leo, (Burt Young from the Rocky films) primarily for the money. Instead of giving personal care to Leo, Mike puts the man into a nursing home.

The lawyer’s wife, Jackie, (Amy Ryan of “The Wire” and “The Office”) becomes aware the guardianship only when the old man’s grandson, Kyle, (Alex Shaffer from nothing else, but he does a great job) shows up on the porch of the old man’s house. Mike and Jackie decide to take Kyle into their home.

Mike has an another job as the high school wrestling coach of a very bad team. He discovers that Kyle is a very good wrestler. So good that he might turn the team’s fortunes around.

When Leo’s daughter (Kyle’s mother) shows up unexpectedly, complications ensue.

Throughout the film, questions of motivation keep cropping up.

Does Mike agree to look after Leo only for the money, or does he care about the crazy old guy?

Does Mike care about Kyle just because he’s a needy, likable kid, or because he’s a great wrestler?

Is Leo’s daughter looking to get her family back together, or is she just there for her father’s money?

If we are honest with ourselves, most of our choices in life are made with a variety of motives, from altruistic to selfish. The apostle Paul often wrote about our mixed motives in ministry.

In Philippians chapter 1, Paul wrote: “15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill…18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

Here Paul seems to be saying, I don’t care about the motives, as long as the Gospel is preached, good is done.

And yet the same guy writes in the famous Love Chapter, I Corinthians 13, “2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

So which is it Paul, do motives matter, or not?

In “Win, Win”, we see the consequences of bad choices made from good motives, and some good choices made with bad motives. And fortunately, how love and forgiveness can redeem both.

This film, written and directed by Thomas McCarthy (“The Visitor” and “The Station Agent”) is rated R for language (including swearing by minors, something that personally annoys me greatly in films, it hasn't been funny since "The Bad News Bears") and brief, unappealing nudity (a mooning). (But it also portrays a strong marriage and church as a normal part of life. Both rare and worthy sites in contemporary films.)

Lent Devotional for HCC on Ps. 42: 1 & 2

2011-04-19T16:20:00.000-07:00

1 As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, my God.
2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When can I go and meet with God?

Even if you’re not a naturalist, you may have noticed that deer do not carry bottle waters: not Evian, not Arrowhead, not even the twelve bottles for a buck at $1 tree. (I’d like to say the buck pun was not intended, but…)
My point is, and I do have one, that though we have a wide variety of sources to fulfill our thirst, from the kitchen sink to the office drinking fountain, a deer probably just knows one place to quench its thirst. It knows where to find that one stream. When thirsty, it will probably make every effort and risk any danger to reach that stream. The chance of a mountain lion or hunter in wait will not keep the deer from seeking out its source of water.
We have only one source for spiritual refreshment. Sure there rival claims for refreshment. People look for satisfaction from material goods, achievement, sensual pleasures or within themselves. But these sources do as much good as giving a dehydrated man a Coke or a Bourbon straight. Perhaps a better analogies would be a poisoned well or a full glass from the Pacific.
God alone can thirst the quench the thirst of the soul. At this time of lent, we are wise to take every opportunity, take any risk, sacrifice to seek Him.

Favorite Legal Films (as opposed to the illegal films I watch)

2011-04-19T16:10:00.000-07:00

I was watching an old episode of Perry Mason, and you’ll never guess what happened!

Someone hired Perry to take care of a minor legal matter. Then someone was murdered and Perry’s client was arrested for the crime!

In the court, Perry eventually Perry proved his client was innocent and even got the true murderer to confess!

What’s that? You did guess what happened…. How? Oh, that’s right. Because Perry handled hundreds of murder cases in books, TV shows and even movies: and pretty much the same thing happened every time. (Well, Petty did lose one case, but that was his client lied about everything, so that doesn’t really count.)

I find there is something reassuring about the show, thinking that if I was ever in trouble, there would be a perfect advocate by my side. It’s a Biblical desire. In Job 16: 19, Job tells his “friends” who accuse him of some great, but unnamed great crimes that he “Even now my witness is in heaven, my advocate is on high.”

Considering the important (but not primary) role that the Law has in Scripture, it’s not surprising that lawyers, courts and lawsuits all can be found in the Bible.

So if you are looking for a legal story with a little less predictability than is found in Earl Stanley Gardner’s mysteries, you might want to consider Netflicking (or library ordering) one of my five favorite legal films.

5) “My Cousin Vinny” (1992)

This legal comedy, according to many lawyers, gets the legal details right telling the story of a young man from New York traveling through the rural South accused of murder.He calls his cousin to defend him, who is, well, almost a lawyer. Joe Pesci playing Vinny for the Defense is rude and abrasive in genteel court room, but proves an effective advocate.
We need a good advocate when we’re innocent but even more when we’re guilty. (I John 2:1, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”)

4) “The Verdict” (1982)

This is drama about a medical malpractice case brought by a lawyer (Paul Newman) intent on recompense for his clients as well as redemption for himself. (Directed by the late Sidney Lumet, who directed one of the films below.)
God is very concerned about this type of justice as we see in Exodus 23:6, “Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.”

3) “The Fortune Cookie” (1966)

This Billy Wilder comedy shows how the legal system can be abused. When photographer Jack Lemmon, he sees an unfortunate minor innocent; his shyster brother-in-law Walter Matthau sees dollar signs.
The Apostle Paul was concerned about this kind of abuse of the legal system, especially among believers. He argued in I Corinthians 6: 7, “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?”

2) “12 Angry Men” (1957)

We still hope that truth will prevail in the legal system, especially in the jury room. We hope for a Juror #8 (Henry Fonda). (John 14: 16 Jesus promises, “He will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth.”)

1) “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962)

But justice is not always done on the courts of earth, even when the great Gregory Peck represents the defense. This wonderful story about justice (and race and family and childhood) reminds us that ultimately, only God will make things right. (Dueteronomy 17:8 If case come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge… take them to the place the Lord your God will choose.)

On Course Article

2011-04-11T16:06:00.001-07:00

http://oncourse.ag.org/oc/features.cfm?targetBay=06d52a80-8681-49b2-871b-a4e5dc1c7708&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=18953&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3459&RSS_Source

Lent Devotional for HCC

2011-04-08T19:56:00.000-07:00

John 13: 34 – 35

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

If you happen to be in the mall and you see a young woman wearing a red, white and blue cap; and a red, white, blue and yellow blouse; and blue shorts; and tennis shoes; there is no doubt in the world that that woman works for Hot Dog on a Stick.

Not Macy’s or Panda Express or the Gap or Burger King. Hot Dog on a Stick has perhaps the most distinctive uniform in the world. If you walk up to their kiosk or store in a mall, you don’t need to see the sign, only the person and the outfit.

Jesus wanted His followers to be just as distinctive. He wanted us to stand out in the crowd. He wanted there to be no doubt about who we worked for. But He didn’t demand us to wear a special cap or name tag. He wanted us to love. Love as He loved, selflessly, spectacularly, sacrificially.

Of course, that kind of love will stand out. It can sometimes be misinterpreted. But Jesus talked to women in a misogynist culture; healed foreigners in a racist culture; kissed the man about to betray Him.

In other words, don’t be embarrassed by the uniform of love – just wear it.

Family Feud

2011-04-07T16:56:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had your kids come in while something rather embarrassing was on the screen? I don’t know what you were watching, but my TV was tuned to the “Family Feud”.

Yes, the insipid game show that left the networks and has been in syndication since the invention of the cathode tube (actually thirty years since it began with Richard Dawson on ABC and syndication).

I know what you’re thinking: “Family Feud” makes even “Deal or No Deal” look like the good stuff squeezed between pledge breaks. But I have my reasons. They may not be good reasons, but what excuse do you have for watching “ER” past its prime? So at the very least, after reading this, you may feel a little better about your mindless viewing.

1) “It can hurt your chances as a contestant if you are smart.” I find this fascinating. Since the answers are culled from a survey of random Americans, it is best to be of average intelligence. Any brilliant singular answer has been tossed, since at least two people must respond in the same way to make the survey. And in the initial showdown, you need the most popular answer. Which means “Homer Simpson” beats “Homer’s Iliad” every time, just as “Pamela Anderson” beats “Marion Anderson” in the category of female entertainer. Even more amazing, your answer may need to be factually incorrect to win, such as “whale” in the category “big fish”.

2) “The changing hosts say something about our time.” I’m not sure what it says, but it sure is interesting. Can you imagine Richard Dawson trying to lip kiss every contestant today? (He must have hung out with Bob Crane far too long.) Ray Combs sadly took his own life after his 1988 to 1994 run on the show, so that might not speak well of those years. Louie Anderson was hired in the midst of the whole Clinton-Lewinski thing, which seemed appropriate somehow. Surely the switch from Richard Karn (“Home Improvement”’s Al Borland from 2002 – 2006) to John O’Hurley (“Seinfeld”’s Mr. Peterman) foreshadowed the Democratic House and Senate in some weird red/blue state way. I haven’t given this a whole lot of thought, but surely some thesis papers are in order.

3) “The really dumb rituals.” The audience reading along with the revealed answers, “TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS”, and the handshake that starts the round. Something reassuring about a feud that starts with a handshake.

4) “You can watch it in Spanish.” And if you are willing to travel, you can see it in a number of other languages. This can be helpful in your language studies. But here in the good old U.S. or A. you can see it in Espanola as well as English. But the dollar amounts played for are less, and if they’re talking pesos, it’s really pathetic.

5) “ ‘Family Feud’ has provided the best ‘Saturday Night Live’ fodder of any game show outside of ‘Jeopardy’ with Will Farrell’s Alex Trebeck.” I forget, did John Belushi get an Emmy for the skit where he was a contestant that answered ‘chicken necks’ for everything? If he did not, a grave injustice was done. I believe Steve Martin was his father, whose only answer was the Romaine lettuce heads he farmed.

6) “Occasionally there are very attractive contestants that jump up and down in excitement.” ‘Nuff said.

7) “It has a home game.” Sure, they have the computer and DVD versions. But you want one of the classic old editions with the plastic sliders and the card with the red ink so the answers can’t be seen through the red plastic. It’s an investment that will pay off on “Antiques Roadshow” someday.

8) “Wouldn’t you rather a pollster called to ask your favorite red food or who’s the sexiest movie star rather than ask who you plan to support for Lieutenant Governor in the next election?”

9) “Really dumb answers.” For instance when someone is asked for something in an operating room, and then answers, ‘an operator,’ any previous tedium is worthwhile. Or when people answer ‘Nixon’ or ‘Adolf’ for one of Santa’s reindeer. Or when asked for an animal with three letters in the name they say ‘frog’ or ‘alligator’. (Though I guess, technically, they do have three letters in their names, and then some.) Or ‘Spring cleaning’ in response to a household chore done in the Fall. (These are, of course, all actual answers that may be found at the Family Feud Dumb Answers website [http://brandon.ikevin.net/feud/].)

10) “A more personal reason for watching ‘Family Feud’.” About twenty-five years ago, my dad had a stroke. He was in the hospital and most of the time was not very responsive. But for some reason, when ‘Family Feud’ came on, he perked up. I hadn’t remembered the show being a particular favorite of his before the stroke (he had preferred viewing any sports activities, up to and including televised bowling). But during those long days and evenings in the hospital, it was a joy to see him liven up and try to answer what America’s favorite breed of dog is according to 100 people surveyed. My dad recovered, and enjoyed many active years before passing away in 2003. Maybe this is the only real reason I stop at “Family Feud” when flipping the channels and have difficulty shutting it off till after the fast money round.

Also from Metaxas' Bonhoeffer biography

2011-03-26T22:12:00.000-07:00

A quote from Hitler:

It's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? the Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

For those who think Adolf was a Christian guy.

Amazing Bonhoeffer Quote

2011-03-26T16:15:00.000-07:00

Came across this while reading Eric Mextaxas' biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. DB wrote this during his 1930-31 trip to the United States, "I want to have a look at church conditions in the South, which allegedly can be quite peculiar, and get to know the situation of the Negroes in a bit more detail. I don't quite know whether I have not perhaps spent to much time on this (race and segregation) question here, especially since we don't really have an analogous situation in Germany..."
This was, of course, before Hitler's rise, but is a reminder not to take our freedom lightly.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experience #1`: "The Terminator" (1984) & "Code of Silence" (1985)

2011-03-25T03:38:00.000-07:00

It’s a difficult call for #1 movie going experience, but I knew it would be something I saw with Mindy. I always remember hearing in my youth that one should really be more creative with dates than dinner and a movie. But movies comprised a majority of my dating life, even, especially with Mindy (often without the dinner.)

So which experience to choose? I could have gone with the movie Mindy thought was our first date, “The Purple Rose of Cairo” (1985) which Mindy thought of as our first date. (But I just asked her to go at the last minute with another couple and didn’t think it was a date.) I could have chosen the film I thought of as our first date, “Desperately Seeking Susan” (1985). (Mindy wondered why I acted so nervous, like it was a first date, when she thought it was the second.)

I could have gone with the drive-in double feature of two really bad films (“Teen Wolf” and “Volunteers” both 1985) which we saw the night I proposed. Or the movie we saw on our honeymoon (“F/X” 1986).

But I have to go with a drive-in double feature that a bunch of us guys from the dorm of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School were very excited to see. Arnold and Chuck for the price of one. I had already seen “The Terminator”, but certainly wasn’t opposed to seeing it again. And “Code of Silence” was a Chuck Norris film that had actually gotten two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert and that did not happen very often.

So I asked Mindy if she wanted to go. She said no, but she began to pop popcorn for us to take to the show. I said to her, “Oh, come on, Mindy, you’ve never let us down before” and she agreed to go. I didn’t know that the reason she didn’t want to go was because the cost of the show would wipe out her remaining cash.

Several of us guys went, Mindy was the other girl. She rode in a different car than I did, but when we sat on cars to watch the show, she sat next to me. We came in halfway through “Code of Silence”, a film about a cop fighting police corruption. We then watched “The Terminator”, a film about utter awesomeness. We then watched “Code of Silence” in its entirety.

Mindy rode back to school in another car. But she had been right next to me for 2 ½ guy films. This won over my admiration almost as much as her willingness to listen to me talk about that incredible new comic, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.”

In the next couple of weeks, Mindy and I will celebrate our 25th Anniversary. Thanks, Arnold. Thanks, Chuck.

A "Weirdly Engaging" Bill Review

2011-03-21T22:28:00.000-07:00

http://nancyellenhird.wordpress.com/

Stewardship Skit from a Couple of Years Ago

2011-03-20T19:13:00.000-07:00

[Setting – Five people lined up in chairs with usher bringing offering plate. Voiceovers are used for each person as they hold the plate, starting with the usher.]

USHER: Nothing from that first row. What a bunch of cheapskates. How are we ever going to get the parking lot repaved unless these cheapskates start coughing up some dough?

KID: (pulls out handful of pennies): I got all the pennies from my brother’s piggy bank. This is going to be the loudest offering ever.

PARISHONER 1: (holds plate in lap while puzzling over amount to write on check): Now what has the entertainment value of this service been? The music was good this morning, but last week’s sermon dragged. I hope today’s will be better. It certainly was better than the Adam Sandler movie Larry dragged me to last night, and that cost $9.00. Of course, my cable bill is $30 but the whole family uses the TV, and that’s for a whole month. I know, I’ll give what it cost to see the community theater production of “Sound of Music”. It’s important to support the arts.

PARISHONER 2 (putting envelope in plate): I do need this tax deduction! Uncle Sam is going to take a hefty bite. I need to be careful to leave the envelope right side up so people can see the size of my offering. Should I add an extra zero on the envelope? No, it would probably throw off the usher’s count.

PARISHONER 3 (putting in cash): Okay, God, I’m putting in $5 for what I did to Betty, $10 for those extra bourbons the other night and $20 for the time on that website. You know which one I mean. Does that make us square?

PARISHONER 4 (putting in a check): Thanks God, for a chance to give back to You. You’ve given me so much! It’s such fun to be able to give back.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences #2 “The Star Wars Trilogy”

2011-03-18T05:35:00.000-07:00

Sure, making it a tie between the original trilogy is a cheat, but who’s reffing the game, anyway?
The first footage I saw of “Star Wars” was a preview on Creature Features. The host of the show, Bob Wilkins, was lauding the film as the “Science Fiction ‘Gone With the Wind’”. But I wasn’t impressed. I thought the ape guy (Chewbacca) didn’t have make-up nearly as impressive as what was done in “Planet of the Apes”.

My family went on vacation the summer of ’77 to Colorado. And a cousin of mine told me I had to see this film. He spoke with awe about “Star Wars”. He had already bought the LP soundtrack. So I went with him to the theater in Grand Junction. Have no idea of the name of the theater, but it had a big screen. And when those space ships passed right over my head, I was in love.

So three years later, I thought I was ready for the sequel. Yeah, I expected to love it as well, but I didn’t think there would be anything that would surprise me as much as the original film itself. After all, I had been to that universe several times by then. I went with Gregg Naslund and Garth Shaw to the Corta Medera theater with the 70 mil and the huge speakers. While waiting in line, Garth (who had seen the film) hushed some people exiting the show. Apparently, there was some big secret. I was loving the film, but when Darth’s big reveal came, I was dumb struck. The rest of the summer of 1980 was spent arguing whether it could be true. We came up with all kind of theories to work out how Obi Wan’s claim that Darth had killed Luke’s father and that Darth WAS Luke’s father could both be true. (And just about every theory we came up with was better than the lame, punk exposition of the Lucas garbage second trilogy.)

I was anxious, desperate to see the next film. In the summer of 1983, I was working at the UA5. So I was able to go to the employee’s screening the night before the opening. This was before it was common practice to have midnight screenings for the general public. We felt like we were seeing it before anyone else in the world. I invited my sister Lola and her husband Dave to come. Lola was not impressed with Jabba’s muppets, but I was okay with them. But when it came to the scene with the great pit of Carkoon, the resting place of the powerful Sarlacc, well, the awe was back in full force.

Looking back, I’m with the general consensus that the ‘Jedi’ is the least of the originals. But on that night, as the story was completed and the heroes found victory….Well, as you can see by the rankings, the first viewings of each of these films I found were theater going highlights. And you may think it sad, but they were life highlights. (I don’t find it sad at all.)

The Cost of Pretty

2011-03-14T09:35:00.000-07:00

At a recent memorial service for a dear woman of our church, among photos of the woman’s 90+ years hung a couple of landscape paintings. Pastor Becca commented, “She used to offer some of her paintings for sale at the Fall auction. But usually they didn’t sell. It made me sad.”
I recently finished reading a novel about the art world, An Object of Beauty by Steve Martin (Grand Central Publishing, 2010). The book covers the New York art scene from the 1990’s to the present(ish), focusing on a Holly Golightly-like character by the name of Lacey. Lacey ventures into the world of art for the love of it, but something changes in her when she works at a prominent auction house.
Martin writes, “At Sotheby’s, she started to look at paintings differently. She became an efficient computer of values. The endless stream of pictures that passed through the auction house helped her develop a calculus of worth…When Lacey began these computations, her toe crossed ground from which it is difficult to return: she started converting objects of beauty into objects of value.”
Lacey pursues art for money’s sake, and hurts a number of people along the way.
It is quite easy to fall into the trap of viewing art through the lens of monetary value. Not just painting, but also literature, photography, woodworks, etc. If someone is willing to pay for it, then it has worth. Stephen King wrote in his book, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (Scibner, 2000), “If someone is willing to pay for your work, you’re a writer.”
I’ve attended writer’s conference with fellow writers who seemed desperate to see their name in print. Desperate for the validation of a publisher saying, “I’ll buy it” and anxious that many readers would then buy it as well.
But most paintings are never sold. Most poems go unpublished. Most of the screenplays written are never filmed.
So was all that work pointless? Much of it was. But not all.
Paul wrote in Colossians 3: 23 & 24: Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.”
The work we do, the art we create, can have great value, eternal value, if it is done for the Lord’s sake.
Recently, I watched the 1965 film, The Agony and the Ecstasy, a historical drama about the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Charlton Heston plays Michelangelo and Rex Harrison plays Pope Julius II. Both act with hammy abandon.
According to the screenplay by Philip Dunne (based on Irving Stone’s novel), Michelangelo did not want to take on the job. He was a sculptor who didn’t want to paint. He was not inspired by the assignment to paint the apostles. And he didn’t trust the Pope to pay him adequately because he had failed to pay him in the past.
He took the job because he felt he had no choice. He submitted to the authority of the Pope.
But eventually, he took the job. According to the film, he had a vision of the Creation of Man and that was the beginning of his epic recreation of stories of Genesis in what is arguably the greatest artistic creation in history.
According to the film, he was never properly recompensed financially. But I don’t think the artist ultimately cared about that; he came to see the work as something done for the glory of God and not himself.
Those paintings I mentioned at the beginning of the article? They do have an audience. I wouldn’t be surprised if God has his own gallery in which those landscapes are quite prominently displayed.

Airport Skit

2011-03-06T22:59:00.000-08:00

Here's a skit I wrote for tonight's church dinner with a travel theme. Y'all feel free to use it.

Airport Setting

Roxanne: Dean! I didn’t know you were flying out today!

Dean: Yeah, well, my flight was delayed. With security and all, it can take so long these days.

Roxanne: These days it’s really smart to pack light, to get through security and baggage check.

Dean: I always pack light these days. I don’t bother packing shampoo and soap because the hotels already have it.

Roxanne: I learned from Survivor I don’t need to pack a toothbrush. I can always find twigs that you can fray to provide good dental hygiene.

Dean: I found if I bring a small deck of my cards, I don’t need to bring my lap top computer. I just use it to play solitaire anyway.

Roxanne: I don’t need to pack books anymore. I download books to my phone.

Dean: I don’t pack a hair dryer. I just stick my head out of the rental car where ever I’m going.

Roxanne: I don’t pack jewelry. I learned to make darling ear rings out of baggage claim checks.

Dean: I don’t bring T-Shirts. I’m going to buy souvenir shirts anyway, so I just where those.

Roxanne: I don’t pack nylons anymore. I bring along silk worms. They don’t take any space. They weave darling panty hose.

Dean: Why do you need a coat when there is always local game you can hunt for furs.

Roxanne: You can make such cute skirts from the local grasses.

Dean: Most places you go in the world you can find sheep and you can use their wool to make great sweaters.

Kid 1 (dragging trunk): Roxanne, you forgot your luggage.

Kid 2 (dragging bigger trunk): Dean, you don’t want to leave without this.

Roxanne: It’s lighter than it looks.

Dean: Mine too.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences #3: “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962)

2011-03-03T02:29:00.000-08:00

This is probably the best film on the list. It got the Academy Award for Best Picture the year it came out. But I didn’t see it the year it came out. I saw it in re-release when I was in the 4th grade. I think it I saw it at the Coddingtown Cinema in Santa Rosa. I liked it, but had a hard time following the plot. This could because I was in the 4th grade. It could also be because in re-release an hour had been hacked out of its nearly four hour length. This was not a top movie theater experience.
The next time I saw the film was in 1989 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The film had been carefully restored to David Lean’s original vision. (But not fully restored. Some footage appears to be forever lost, and other segments needed to be dubbed because the original sound track was lost.)
Mindy and I went to see the film in 70 mm, a huge picture on a huge screen. And that is how this film is meant to be seen. The story of a passionate, perhaps mad, Englishman who entered the world of the Arabian desert is perhaps the greatest epic ever made (step aside “Gone With the Wind”.) There is a scene in the film where Sherif Ali (Omar Sherif) thinks T. E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) is lost in the desert and may never return. But then he (and we) sees a tiny speck on the horizon through the sand billowing in the desert wind. That speck becomes a man…Lawrence. That scene does not have the same impact in 35 mm on a smaller screen, let alone on a television screen (even a home theater.)
That was a wonderful night, but it was still not the best.
An even better experience, #3 on this list was when I could take my kids to see “Lawrence” in 70 mm at the Castro Theater in San Francisco. It is a true cinema palace, with art deco interior and an organ that plays before the show. The huge theater was full the night we went. It was amusing to hear the audience laugh knowingly when the dialogue referred to the foolishness of Western nations interfering in the Middle East (this was not long after the start of the second Iraq war.)
We watched up in the balcony. During intermission, the projectionist let the kids into the booth to look around.
But the best thing was being able to share with my kids the glory of Lean’s beautiful vistas, O’Toole’s impassioned performance and a story from history told with humor, majesty and mystery. One of the most lovely images in cinema is Lawrence spinning in the sand in his first native robe.
I’ve taken the kids to other films at the Castro (the original “King Kong” and “Blade Runner”), but this was a truly memorable night.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences #4: “House of Dark Shadows” (1970) and “The Fearless Vampire Killers” (1967)

2011-02-23T04:55:00.000-08:00

As a kid, I love movie monsters. My brother, Dale, and I collected the move monster models. We had all the Universal Studio Horror Icons, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Wolfman, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Dracula.
I thought about monsters a lot. The first novel I tried (one of many that only went as far as a chapter or two) was about Godzilla. But I never got to see horror films. They were always on past my bedtime. The only monster films I got to see were the ones in which they met Abbot and Costello. Those were shown early Sunday morning (alternating with Francis the Talking Mule and Ma and Pa Kettle.)

Then an incredible thing happened. A soap opera added monsters. I always hated soap operas. They took daytime TV hours away from game shows, cartoons and reruns of “Leave it to Beaver”. But ABC took an average soap opera, “Dark Shadows” and added vampires, ghosts and werewolves. This made it “Must See TV” to me, long before NBC came up with the slogan.

I watched the show faithfully, and my two older brothers and two older sisters watched it as well.

So when a “Dark Shadows” movie came out, we went together. This was one of two movie outings that I remember with just us siblings and no parents. (The other was the musical version of “Scrooge” with Albert Finney. Both times we went to the Park Cinema in Santa Rosa.)

I’d always wanted to see a horror film at the theater. My parents must have been concerned I would be petrified. I was. It was great.

In the soap opera, everything moved at glacial speed and obviously character could only be rarely dispatched. All the actors from the show were in “House of Dark Shadows” but there must have been no concern for continuity with the show because characters were killed in rapid succession. (Usually being killed and then turned into a vampire so they could be killed yet again.)

And “The Fearless Vampire Killers” (with the alternate title “Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are in My Neck”) was even scarier. My brother, Daryl, assured us this film was a comedy so it wouldn’t be scary. But the film was made by the great director Roman Polanski, so it managed to be funny and scary.

Polanski would make more frightening films (“Rosemary’s Baby”, particularly), but I wouldn’t see those until much later in life. (Polanski’s personal life was even more macabre.)

Even Dan Curtis who directed “Dark Shadows” would make better and scarier things (especially “The Night Stalker” and all the Kolchak adventures that would follow.)
But soon my mom made us stop watching “Dark Shadows” because Dale had nightmares. So I cherished this outing as a horror highlight in my life. Even though I’ve watched the show “Dark Shadows” as an adult and it has not held up well at all….I still consider this outing a movie going highlight. But now more because of Gwynne, Daryl, Lola and Dale than the films.

Noir Preaching

2011-02-19T22:41:00.000-08:00

When I took my first film class I was surprised to hear the teacher pronounce the word “genre” with one syllable rather two. At he used the same definition I knew, a style or category of art. For instance, in film some genres would be romantic comedy, biography or horror.
The popularity of genres rise and fall. Musicals became big in the 1930s but began to lose their audience in the 60’s and have never come back strong. Super hero films were never really trend until the last decade. There was nothing more popular than the Western through the early days of film, until the 1960’s when they faded. But every once in while they pop back. “True Grit” by Ethan and Joel Coen which came out last year is a Western that has already made over $160 million.
There are sermon genres as well. The Hell Fire and Brimstone genre of sermon used to be very popular. But now, not so much. Now sermons about God’s love are more in vogue, and that’s all well and good. Sermons about sin aren’t very popular anymore either (though I kind of doubt they ever were.)
So it’s good there still is a genre of film that quite ably preaches about sin. That genre is Noir. The name comes from the French word for dark and it is used to describe films that focus on dark aspects of life; ruthless criminals and hapless murderers, shady detectives and beautiful, treacherous women. The first film by the Brothers Coen was a Noir. I just watched “Blood Simple” (1984) again and it reminded me that the truth about sin can never be silenced.
The film opens with a man and woman in a car on a dark night in Texas. They seem nice enough. The woman (Abby played by Frances McDormand) is married to a cruel man and the man (Ray played by John Getz) just seems to want to help. But they soon make a very bad mistake. Their affair leads to one death, then another and then another.
The Coens were working on a very small budget but with creative writing, camerawork and a dark wit. But perhaps the strongest piece of the film is the performance by M. Emmet Walsh as a greedy, vulgar detective whom assumes he can drag everyone down to him to his own detestable level. He’s right, of course.
Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” That’s not something we like to think about it. But the world of Film Noir reminds us that circumstances and the dark desires of the heart can lead even those that seem upright and respectable to consider and even commit the darkest acts.
“Blood Simple” is rightly rated R for language, sexual situations and extreme violence. There are some great Noir films from the days when film censorship kept such things off the screen.
Fred McMurray was a movie star that in Disney films like “The Shaggy Dog” and the TV show “My Three Sons” seemed like the nicest guy in the world. But in Billy Wilder’s great “Double Indemnity” (1944) the nice guy makes some very bad choices of the heart.
Noir films don’t even have to be about murder. “The Sweet Smell of Success” (1958) with Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis is about the world of New York newspapers and shows that gossip can also be deadly.
As I said, Noir films preach Jeremiah 17:9 very well. They don’t do as well with verse 14, “Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed; save me and I will be saved, for you are the one I praise.” But I guess that’s what Sunday sermons are for.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experience #5: “The Towering Inferno” (1974)

2011-02-11T04:09:00.000-08:00

I’m thankful to some guest speaker or other who came to Wikiup Evangelical Free Church for going to see this movie with my dad. Someone said from a pulpit, “Dads, you need to spend time with your sons. Spend time doing things they’re interesting in… fishing, building model planes…Whatever they want to do.”
But, of course, there was something I’d rather do than throw a baseball around or panning for gold. When Dad asked what I wanted to do, I said go to the movies. And what was better during my late elementary school and Jr. High years than disaster movies? My brother Dale and I got to see “The Poseidon Adventure” together, the first PG film we saw without our parents. And PG movies in the ‘70’s got away with a lot more in those prePG-13 days.
So in a disaster movie those days, you knew you’d get cool special effects, some gore, some rough language, and best of all, women who would be forced by natural catastrophe to run around for much of the film in skimpy clothing (often just a man’s shirt.)
So, anyway, Dad and I went together, leaving the rest of the family behind, to see this Irwin Allen classic. Irwin Allen was a genius. Not only was he the King of the Disaster Film with “Inferno” and “Poseidon” and later the worst and therefore best disaster film of all time, “The Swarm” (a Bee film with an A cast) but also he produced some of my favorite TV shows of my childhood (“The Time Tunnel”, “Land of the Giants”, “Voyage of the Bottom of the Sea” and especially, “Lost in Space”.)
We went to see this at the Park Cinema. In the film, the world’s tallest building is having its debut, but Paul Newman, the architect, worries that bad guys William Holden and Robert Wagner cut corners during construction. Paul’s right, of course. The fire starts small, but soon threatens the party goers in the top floor.
The awkward thing was when the requisite woman in skimpy clothing appeared (Susan Blakely attired only in Robert Wagner’s shirt). You always hear people complain about the ratings board for American films dealing much more harshly with sex than with violence. There is a good reason for this. I can speak to this as a parent. If I’m watching a movie with one of my kids and someone is shot in the head and said head explodes, I can watch the screen or turn my head away, and my kid can do the same. We can even look and each other and say, “How Gross!” or “How Cool!”, whatever the case may be. On the other hand, if a naked woman appears on the screen… I don’t want my kid watching me watch the screen. I don’t want to look at my kid because we’re both embarrassed. Even if I cover my eyes, I wonder if my kid is covering as well and if I look, will my kid think I’m looking to see if I can look at the screen….
But fortunately, for my Dad and me and Susan Blakely, the power went out in the theater. So Susan was not consumed by flames. We sat in the theater, waiting to see if the film would start. It was not dark in the theater, because the emergency lights went on. We waited and waited, until an usher came in and told us that we would be given rain checks.
As we left, my Dad asked me whether I would like to see the rest of the film or see something else. The next week we returned to see all 165 minutes of disaster. Because I wanted to see those great movie stars, Newman, Steve McQueen and the master thespian O. J. Simpson. And went Susan Blakely scurried down the hallway (and I believe out a window), my dad and I watched. Our eyes fixed on the screen, not daring to look at each other.

Top Ten Movie Experience #6: “The War Wagon” (1967)

2011-02-03T05:24:00.000-08:00

This may be my first memory in a movie theater. Maybe “Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs” was before this, (I remember being scared in the forest scene), but with Disney out of the vault schedule, I’m not sure what year I saw that. I might have seen “Thunderball” and “The Great Race” earlier, but they may have been rereleases and I know I saw them in drive-ins.
So I know, with certainty, that “The War Wagon” is the first movie I remember seeing in a walk-in theater. Saw it with my parents and all my brothers and sisters and I know it was in the year the film was released. And it was in Canada. I haven’t watched many films outside of the United States, so it stands out because of that. (There was “Swiss Family Robinson” in Mexico and “Orange County” in the Bahamas. But there have not been many more.)
My family came in late for “The War Wagon”, a Western with John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. The credits had already run and when we came in the Duke and the Chin were in a bar. I don’t think we had any problem following the plot (Wayne and Douglas need to rob an armored stage full of gold, but they had good, lawful reasons for doing so.)
Now the amazing thing is when one, some or all of us kids complained about not seeing the whole film, my parents agreed that we could stay for the next screening. This was quite a revelation to me. That films played again and again and not only could you stay for parts you missed, but if you liked a film well enough, you could maybe stay to see it again. I’m not sure why this was such a revelation, but I’m not saying I was that bright of a kid.
I remember three things about that trip to British Columbia. One – my sister lifting me up to sit on a bridge and losing a tennis shoe in a river (and discovering at the shoe store that in Canada, tennis shoes were called ‘runners’). Two – Glaciers. Three – “The War Wagon”.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences #7: “Godzilla 2000” (1999)

2011-01-29T05:15:00.000-08:00

You may not know this, but movies run in theaters even if there is not audience. There’s a reason for this, of course. Most movie theaters no longer change reels. All the reels are spliced together and put on a large platter. So once you start a film, it has to run all the way through.
Now, let’s say the show time is 1 PM and no one shows. So you said, “Let’s not bother to show the movie.” And then ten teen thugs show up to watch the movie at 1:10, hoping they had missing the PSAs, trailers and credits and were ready to be cinematically entertained. So you start the show twenty minutes late. Which would make the 3 PM show late, and the 5 PM show and the 7 and the 9. So you have to start the movie every time, even the last show, just for the off chance someone shows.
I remember 1988’s “Jack’s Back” with James Spader running many times on its first and final weekend with no one attending at the UA5.
I love it when I’m the only one watching a movie. If I feel like it, I can stretch out in the center aisle, scratch, belch and make MST3000 remarks loudly to the screen. It’s nice, of course, as well, when it is a film with only my family. Off hand, I can only think of one time that happened. An that wasn't the only cool thing about this particular sceening.
When I still lived in Felton, CA, my wife Mindy and our kids (Bret, Paige and Jill) were visiting Santa Rosa. And visiting the UA5, my old theater workplace. Mary Ann was still managing the theater, as she did when I working there. And she gave the kids a tour of the upstairs, to see the movie projectors running. Even more cool, she gave each of the kids their own preview of coming attractions trailer (“Titan A-E” for Bret, “Rocky and Bullwinkle” for Paige [poor Paige] and “X-Men” for Jill.)
Then we watched (free of charge), “Godzilla 2000”. Now, this is not the best of the Big G films. Not nearly as good as the original, but so much better than the American CGI abomination. Because it had men in suits, the way Japanese sci-fi with bad dubbing was meant to be.
In case you want to know the plot, “Godzilla saves Tokyo from a flying saucer that transforms into the beast Orga.” I didn’t remember that. I copied it from IMDB. I remember Toho Studios and United Artists spending millions of dollars for the entertainment of my family alone on a wonderful weekday afternoon. It was not only the first time my kids had seen the real Godzilla on a big screen, it was the first time for me. I had watched him on Creature Features and the kids saw him on video, but never on the big screen. And we got to play Mike, Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot. Nothing better. (Although since this is #7, there must be at least six things better.)

Addenda for Movie Theater Post #9

2011-01-24T23:59:00.000-08:00

I left out in my "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" post who I saw the movie with, and that would be Gregg Naslund. Some of my best film going in high school and college was with Gregg. Together we saw such fine films as "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" at the drive-in and a double feature of "The Spy Who Loved Me" with "Logan's Run".
But again the point of these posts is the experience more than the movie. Such as the time, while waiting for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to start that Gregg recited Dr. Suess' "I Had Trouble in Getting to Solo Salu" to an appreciative audience.
Also memorable was an incident after viewing "Dawn of the Dead" with Gregg. Somehow, after this very gory film, we decided to get something to eat. We pulled into the Jack in the Box parking lot and looked in the window. We then looked at each other, not believing what we saw. People in Jack's with blue faces, the same shade as the zombies in DotD. We then realized, it was a group of clowns. Which may have been scarier.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences: #8 “Oliver!” (1968)

2011-01-23T05:52:00.000-08:00

My sister is (sorry, Gwynne) ten years older than I am and when I was little she got the most awesome job in the world, working in a movie theater. At least, I thought so at the time. Free movies and free popcorn, who could ask for more? (Well, it would be nice if they paid you. But that didn’t keep me from working on and off in movie theaters once I was old enough.)

When Gwynne worked for a summer at the Park Cinema, they had two theaters and for many, many weeks they had the same two movies playing, “Oliver!” and “Funny Girl”. I watched FG, and it was okay, but I’m sure a lot of what was happening in the film flew over my head.

But “Oliver!”, well, I pretty much loved it. We went to see it (free, of course) as a family. But even better was when Gwynne worked and I went with her and watched the film by myself. This was the first time I watched a film alone, something I still enjoy on occasion.

At the time, I thought the very best seats in the house were in the very front row, so you could stretch your legs out and completely enter the world of the film. The screen was all you could see, and I was back in Merry Olde England with the Artful Dodger (played by Jack Wild who starred at the time in one of my Saturday morning favorites, “H. R. Pufnstuf”.)

Though my childhood was much happier than Oliver’s (Mark Lester), I still could relate to feeling alone at times (though not sleeping in a coffin) and envied his discovery at the end that in fact he came from a rich family (though I would later appreciate that my family was richer than most in nonmonetary ways.)

Oliver Reed scared me as he was meant to as the villainous Bill Sikes.

But best of all, was Nancy played by Shani Wallis. Sitting in the front row, I thought she was the most beautiful woman in the world. (My first movie star crush, narrowly beating out Katherine Ross in 1969’s “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”.) Sadly, Wallis didn’t have a very prolific career. I see at IMDB she had a stint on “The Young and the Restless”, but I’ve never watched soaps. I might have seen her guest shots on “Columbo” and “Charlie’s Angels”, but I don’t remember. I wanted to see the horror film “Arnold” but my parents wouldn’t take me. But I do remember her voicing the Nancy-like mouse pub singer in “The Great Mouse Detective.”

There were kid’s matinees that Gwynne got me into that summer, such fine films as “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and “Attack of the Puppet People”, but “Oliver!” was even better than those great films in my 6 year old mind.

Top Ten Movie Going Experiences #9

2011-01-22T03:02:00.000-08:00

This should have been the title of the post below. All hope for better for Post #8.

"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" and "Piranha" (1978) UA 6 Santa Rosa

2011-01-22T02:58:00.000-08:00

Actually saw these in 1979 at one of the great Midnight Shows at the UA 6 in Santa Rosa. It was at these shows that I first saw such classics as “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” and “Apocalypse Now” and other things that were not quite classics. Such rules as not drinking (alcohol) and smoking (tobacco or other substances) were not enforced at this time.
This particular screening took place before I worked at this theater (working for UA on and off for years.) You might say these are two bad films, but they are great bad films, bad in quite different ways. Films that try to be so bad that they’re good almost never, ever work. But “Tomatoes” did for me. It is a silly spoof of horror films that made me laugh. (Sometimes it’s easier to laugh after midnight.)
And “Piranha” was made by people that were about to become big. Directed by Joe Dante (“Gremlins”) and written by John Sayles (“Eight Men Out”), this is much more subtle and subversive spoof of horror films.
But the best thing is that it was a Double Feature! (Awesome things that there aren’t enough of anymore.) And it started at Midnight!) (I had a speech tournament the next morning in Sacramento. I had two hours sleep at the most and did horribly in the tournament. It was so worth it.)

Books I Read In 2010

2011-01-17T11:29:00.000-08:00

I realized I had made a top movie list and a top TV list from list from 2010, but not a top book list. So instead, here's the books that were published in 2010 and that I read in 2010.
These are the ones I could think of, off hand.

“Devils in Exile” by Chuck Hogan

“61 Hours: A Reacher Novel” by Lee Childs (but not “Worth Dying For” yet)

“Dexter is Delicious” by Jeff Lindsay

“Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the After Life” by Lisa Miller

“Blockage Billy (with the short story ‘Morality’)” by Stephen King

“Juliet, Naked” by Nick Hornby

“Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One” by Zev Chafets

“Ford County: Stories” by John Grisham

“The Strain” by Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan

“Winston’s War: Churchill, 1940 – 1945” by Max Hastings

“Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void” by Mary Roach

“The Hilliker Curse: My Pursuit of Women” by James Ellroy

“101 Places Not to See Before You Die” by Catherine Price

Of these, "Packing for Mars" was probably the nonfiction book I enjoyed the most and "Devils in Exile" or "Juliet, Naked" was the most fun novel.

Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences: #10

2011-01-17T10:12:00.000-08:00

I appreciate the benefits of the digital revolution has had on the movie experience. It's great to have more movies, especially old, classic films available in the home. But there can be something special about going to the movies. Some of my favorite experiences have been in movie theaters (or drive-in.) Thus this list.
This is a personal list, and as the first film on this list makes clear, the film doesn't have to be great for it to make the list.

#10) OUTLAND - 1981 -(Grauman's/Mann's Chinese Theater) - This Sean Connery science fiction remake of HIGH NOON is no great shakes. It's entertaining but I remember it having a loose grip on how gravity, vacuums and other scientific principals work. Like many films by Peter Hyams (Timecop, Capricorn One, The Star Chamber) there is decently directed action and a plot with ludicrous conspiracies, but the film isn't what puts this on the list.

It's on the list because of the history the theater. Built in 1927, the art deco style of the place is cool. But it's real fame comes from the foot and hand prints in the cement which started with Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks and went on to include everyone from John Wayne to R2D2.

I've been there other times (once when Michael Landon was filming an episode of "Highway to Heaven".) But this was the only time I've seen a film there. I went with my brother Dale. The screen was large, the picture was clear and the sound system was good.

Better than the film was one of the trailers. This was the first time I saw footage of "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Seeing the trailer, I thought the film had potential. (My first viewing of "Raiders" with family and friends sitting next to my sister-in-law Carol almost made this list. The film itself is certainly in my top ten.)

The Western Isn't Dead

2011-01-11T22:30:00.000-08:00

True Grit

“The banjo takes me back, through the foggy haze,
With memories of what never was, become the good old days.”

The line above is taken from a country-western song by Steve Martin, “Daddy Played the Banjo” and I think it summarizes nicely the appeal of the Western genre. We might know that the world of cowboys and gunslingers, saloons and Main Street at high noon is mythical, but we still like to think of it as our history and heritage.
The new version of True Grit puts on some pretense of being more “authentic” by keeping much of the language of Charles Portis’ classic novel, acknowledging the racism of the time period and featuring grim living conditions. But it’s really a Western, an adventure story as real as tales of Camelot or Narnia. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
There is something about a good adventure story that stirs the spirit, that makes us think that we weren’t made to live ordinary lives but are meant to accomplish great things. It’s even better when the hero of the story is young. Treasure Island endures as a classic tale partly because it’s a young boy, Jim Hawkins, that enters the murderous world of pirates.
I think Portis created an even better protagonist with Mattie Ross, a 14 year old girl with intelligence, orneriness and, yes, True Grit (tenacious courage.) When her father is murdered and no adult seems interested in bringing the killer to justice, she takes on the task herself.
One of the things I love about the character is her Christian faith, which seems to tend toward the Pharisaical. She is quick to judge others. She considers the man her father traded horses with to be a crook. She is quick to assess the federal marshal she hires to track her father’s killer as a lazy drunk. And of course, there’s the condemnation she wishes to heap on that killer, Tom Chaney.
Though a judgmental nature is always an ugly thing, like many fashions it hangs a little better on the young. Mattie, like most teens, is an idealist who expects more from people than they are able to deliver. Older people should know better. (Jesus captured this judgmental spirit well in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18: 9 – 14.)
But Mattie is smart enough to know she can’t take on Chaney and his gang of outlaws alone. So she joins up with Rooster, whom she considers a sinner, and Texas Ranger LeBoeuf, whom she considers a dandy. The three go together into the wilderness and face great dangers from both villains and nature.
Trials bring these three people together into a bond of respect and love.
Mattie’s cause is not of the noblest kind. She seeks revenge. (She should have been looking to Romans 12:19.) But I think there is lesson here for Christ’s church: when we have a common goal and vision and seek it together, Christ will bond us together, and we can overcome our petty differences.
The film opens with a quotation from Proverbs 28: 1, “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Strangely, the second half of the verse was omitted, “but the righteous are bold as a lion.” One of the joys of a good adventure is the spending time with good, brave people. True Grit, with wonderful performances by Jeff Bridges (in the role that won John Wayne an Oscar), Matt Damon and especially newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie.
It’s a great adventure, but God has bigger adventures in store for you.

By my figuring, this puts the Coen Brothers (Ethan and Joel)film record at 13 for 15, which is very, very, impressive.

(True Grit is PG-13 for language and violence.)

My Top Ten Films for 2010

2010-12-31T03:53:00.000-08:00

Okay, here are the rules.

I) The film had to be released in U. S. theaters in 2010. (Which ruled out things like the amazing restoration of 1927’s “Metropolis” or the purely imaginary adaptations of my Bill the Warthog books.)

II) I had to see the film in the 2010 calendar, in theater or on DVD. (I haven’t seen “Black Swan” or “The King’s Speech” and others that might have broke into the top ten, but I really think “Waking Sleeping Beauty” is the only film that probably would break the top five.)

So here they are from the bottom up.

10) “Daybreakers” – I’ve always loved vampire fiction, from Bela to Barnabus to Buffy, so if you come up with a new angle, I’m easy to please. The idea of this film is that vampires have taken over the world but now they’re running out of humans and therefore out of food. I liked the little creative touches like blood baristas and daylight proof cars with cameras and screens that allow vamps to drive. Ethan Hawke is a solid lead, but the real fun is seeing Willem Defoe and Sam Neill bite the scenery like it was a tasty neck.

9) “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”- Director Edgar Wright did very creative, innovative work in this film (though I didn’t like this film as much as his “Shaun of the Dead” or “Hot Fuzz”.) But though this film is adapted from a graphic novel, it is arguably the first decent video game adaptation.

8) “The Fighter” – It just seems right that Christian Bale steals this film in the supporting role as the crack addicted brother of true life boxing champ, Micky Ward. After all, Heath Ledger stole “The Dark Knight” from him (partly because of his death, but chiefly because it was a fantastic performance.) The true story is an inspiring one, but there are a few too many Jerry Springer stereotypes on the screen.

7) “Winter’s Bone” – One of the great things about this film is the opportunity to a part of the country that films rarely, venture to, the Ozarks. A sad tale of the meth culture in this destitute region, but the hope is supplied by the courageous character of the young girl, Ree, played very well by Jennifer Lawrence. Looking forward to more from writer/director Debra Granik.

6) “The Town” – The MA accents in “The Fighter” were fun, but even better are the Boston, MA accents in this Ben Affleck directed crime flick. Based on a very good Paul Hogan novel, this film has good performance and some excellent action sequences. Who would have thought after “Gigli” that we would be looking forward to Ben’s next flick (along with Debra’s.)

5) “Inception” – Even better action sequences than in the town (especially in the gravity hallway) than in “The Town” and fun mind games, too. Christopher Nolan has yet to make a film I didn’t like (his “Momento” is one of my all time favorites.) I wrote about it here:

http://deanaanderson.blogspot.com/2010/07/dream-on-dream-on-inception.html

4 ) “Toy Story III” – It’s hard to make a good Number III as the Godfather, Spiderman and Mad Max will testify. But James Bond assured us it could be done. Pixar does it with this return to the adventures of Woody and Buzz Lightyear. Very funny and yet also with an ending that is ripe with sniffles. Sure to win Best Animated Feature.

3) “The Social Network” – Many people scoffed at a Facebook movie, but computer geeks have a vast impact on our day to day lives. But this movie isn’t just about playing Farm and Mafia Games online, but about greed and genius, loyalty and friendship and many other very important things. May well win the Best Picture Oscar, which would not be a bad choice. David Fincher has come a long way from “Aliens 3”.

http://deanaanderson.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-network.html

2) “True Grit” – Remakes are often scorned and rightly so. Even good directors have made bad remakes. (Did “Psycho” really color, Gus Van Sant? Did “Planet of the Apes” need monkey Abe Lincoln, Tim Burton? And is James Marsden a great replacement for Dustin Hoffman in “Straw Dogs”, Rod Lurie? Oh, that’s right Rod, I was talking about good directors.) The Coen Brothers sure screwed up their remake of “The Ladykillers”. But they do it right with this film that made me laugh more than any other film this year. Jeff Bridges has the really tough job of taking the John Wayne role and he pulls it off. People often slam Ethan and Joel Coen of being cold, but I found the last third of this film very moving. And the spiritual content of the Charles Portis novel was not forgotten.

1) “Get Low” – Two favorite actors, Robert Duvall for drama and Bill Murray for comedy. And they’re together. In a very Christian film. I’m happy.

http://deanaanderson.blogspot.com/2010/08/get-low.html

TOP SEVEN TV SHOWS OF 2010

2010-12-29T03:46:00.000-08:00

Now there is a reason why this is a Top Seven list rather than a Top Ten. I decided this should be for shows broadcast in 2010 and that I viewed in 2010. Three shows I watch on DVD I'm watching in a time delay (so don't tell me spoilers.) I watched the 2009 seasons in 2010 and won’t see the 2010 seasons until 2011 at the earliest. I’m pretty sure they would make the list if I was watching them when broadcast. So there are three less titles on the list in honor of MAD MEN, BREAKING BAD and DEXTER. (And these are all scripted shows, which explains the absence of CASH CAB and Oakland A’s games.)

1) LOST – Yeah, I had problems with the possible purgatory subplot, but that wasn’t the whole story, even in Season 6. No show has ever astonished me, made me cry or even laugh as hard as this show. I loved the characters, and not just because so many of them were so very pretty. And it was always so rewarding to see Linus punched in the face.

2) 30 ROCK – It’s amazing how this show still brings the funny in the fifth season. The Christmas episode alone would have earned this a place on the list with the Black Swans and Jack’s Christmas card (“Happy Holidays…Is what terrorists say, Merry Christmas”)

3) COMMUNITY – This almost took spot #2 and it may next year. Love the characters, Abed speaks the meta truth. Paint Ball and Zombie episodes were fantastic movie parodies while barely keeping within the confines of the world of sitcom.

4) THE PACIFIC –Maybe this would have a higher spot if I had finished the whole thing, but four episodes have earned it this spot. Hope to finish the show before 2011 and that more episodes are like Guadalcanal and less are like Melborne.

5) MODERN FAMILY – Now that LOST is gone, this may be the prettiest cast on television. And quite funny.

6) RAISING HOPE – The only new show on the list. (I like RUNNING WILDE, but it’s about to die and I also like HAWAII 5-O, but that’s because it’s awesome stupid.) Finds a nice balance between gross and sweet, hysterical and bizarre. Particularly like Garret Dillahunt who I’m used to as psycho killer (DEADWOOD and LIFE), but now is a zany sitcom dad (grand dad.)

7) CHUCK – The show is more than inconsistent, but when it’s on, it’s on. Plus Adam Baldwin. ‘Nuff said.

May TV be your friend in 2011. (But just one of your friends. Probably not your BEST friend.)

Blake Edwards passed away last night

2010-12-16T17:59:00.000-08:00

My Top Five Blake Edwards films:

1) The Return of the Pink Panther

2) The Pink Panther Strikes Again

3) The Revenge of the Pink Panther

4) S.O.B.

5) Breakfast at Tiffany's

"Does your dig bite?" "No" Vicious champ "I thought you said your dig did not bite?"
"That's not my dog."

I Don't Want To Be Like You-ou-ou

2010-12-12T22:21:00.000-08:00

The saying goes that you don’t want to see how sausage or legislature or children’s songs are made. Okay, they haven’t said it much about children’s songs in the past, but people might start saying it after they see the 2009 documentary The Boys: The Sherman Brothers’ Story.

Of course, Richard and Robert Sherman didn’t just write children’s songs. The brothers began their career together writing pop songs like “Tall Paul” and “You’re Sixteen”. Disney Studios took an interest in them and asked them to write a song for the Hayley Mills comedy, The Parent Trap (“Let’s Get Together –Yeah, Yeah, Yeah”.)

Walt Disney put the brothers on contract (the only songwriters the studio had on contract.) At the studio they wrote songs for such films as The Sword and the Stone, Winnie the Pooh and The Jungle Book, winning Oscars for best score and best song for Mary Poppins (“Chim Chim Cher-ee”. They also wrote one of the most popular and annoying songs of all time, “It’s a Small World”, for the ride of that name.

After Walt Disney’s death, the brothers left the studio and continued to write for films like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Slipper and the Rose and Charlotte’s Web. During all this time, people assumed that since the brothers worked so well as a team, they must get along well together.

But we learn in the film that the brothers who were just two and a half years apart in age were much further apart in personality and disposition. They couldn’t stand each other. They worked together in the office, but kept their distance outside of it. They didn’t allow their families to socialize. When their father died, they held two separate receptions after the funeral.

Those closest to Richard and Robert knew their differences. Robert, the elder, born in 1925, is introverted, quiet and moody. Richard (born in 1928) is extroverted, talkative and on occasion has a sharp temper. In World War II, Robert experienced much. He said he had been a know-nothing kid, but in the war “I learned.” Richard, on the other hand, served in the USO.

Their differences arguably made them a great song writing team. Their differences also drove each other mad.

Really, not a very new and different story: brothers not getting along. Starting with Cain and Abel, on to Jacob and Isaac, and even Jesus had brothers who said he was crazy. What is strange is that the authors of “A Spoonful of Sugar” and “There’s a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow” couldn’t get along.

In I Corinthians 13 we read that without love, one is nothing. So is there value in the work of the Sherman brothers? The odd thing is that although they couldn’t get along, the Sherman brothers surely love each other. In the interviews in the film, that love comes through, even as the brothers admit their resentment.

If this story sounds a little dark for a tale of the composers of “The Aristocats”, you might be interested to know who made the film. The film was directed by Gregory Sherman and Jeff Sherman, cousins who are sons of the composers. They were kept apart for decades by their fathers, but they came together to make this film with the hope of bringing their fathers together. We never see if that part of their plan worked. But this film, certainly, is a work of love.

(Two other documentaries about Disney film making have recently been released, Waking Sleeping Beauty about the revival of Disney animation and Walt and El Grupo about Disney in South America.)

(The Boys: The Sherman Brothers Story is rated PG for language and smoking.)

Did I Tell You About The Book You Should Buy...

2010-11-26T07:43:00.000-08:00

No, not just another Bill the Warthog book (fine as they are), but this one here:

http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1739455

"Self-published" is such an ugly word. Think of it as created for you and a few other very special people.

The Poor Say Thank You By Asking for More

2010-11-20T14:33:00.000-08:00

For the December issue of our church newsletter, I’ve been prone to write two kinds of articles. One: a rehash of the Best Christmas films ever (so if you haven’t watched It’s a Wonderful Life – go watch it already. And have a hankie ready for the film’s finale.) Two: a preview of holiday films to come, on occasion based on their literary pedigree (I’m looking forward to True Grit, based on a good book and a remake of a fine John Wayne film. Usually, I’m not thrilled with the idea of remakes, but since this is from the Coen Brothers, this is an exception.)

Instead, I’m going to write about an anti-Christmas film (really an anti-Christian film, but we’ll see in this context it’s the same thing.) Most films that attack the Christian faith take a safer route than the film I’m going to discuss. Many films, Elmer Gantry for example, attack the clergy. Well, most Christians are more than willing to admit that all have sinned and more than a few scoundrels have abused their roles as evangelists, pastors and priests. Some filmmakers (such as the Pythons when they publicized The Life of Brian) claim that they have no problem with faith itself, just with “organized religion”. But I see very little virtue in the apparent alternative, “chaotic religion.”

But Viridiana, filmed in Spain in 1961 by acclaimed writer/director Luis Buñuel takes a much bolder stand. It attacks Christianity on the grounds that acts of charity and compassion are futile and without worth.

The film tells the story of a young novice (the Silvia Pinal ably plays the title character) who is instructed by her Mother Superior to visit her uncle before she takes her vows. She has up until then had little contact with the uncle who financially supported her.

She obeys and visits her uncle (played by Fernando Rey) at his vast but decaying estate, and finds him to be a man of rather depraved tastes. He tells Viridiana that she reminds him of his late wife and asks the much younger woman to marry him. When she refuses him, he drugs her coffee and takes advantage of her (to an unclear degree.) After this incident, the uncle kills himself because of his guilt.

Viridiana learns she has inherited her uncle’s estate, but it is to be shared with her uncle’s illegitimate son, Jorge. Like his father, Jorge, is a man who pursues pleasure above all else.

Viridiana decides to open the estate to the poor in the village, inviting the blind, the crippled and the destitute. But they take advantage of her hospitality, staging a party in the house that becomes not just an orgy, but a mockery of the Last Supper.

In one of the film’s famed sequences, Jorge is seen trying to perform an act of kindness. He sees a man dragging a dog chained to his wagon. Jorge buys the dog from the man so it will no longer be abused. But they we see another man, another wagon and another dog even more greatly abused. The implication is any act of charity can only change a minute faction of the evil in the world.

The film implies that those who are charitable will be betrayed and abused and no lasting good will come of any of it. Better to “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we will die”.

But these charges come as no surprise to anyone who knows Scripture. Jesus acknowledged the futility of ending all need when He said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Mark 14:7.) His entire life is an example of generosity responded to with ingratitude, betrayal and violence.

But He came to save His enemies (Romans 5: 7 – 8). He came in the flesh that first Christmas, knowing that He had come to die. But His viewpoint is bigger than ours. He knew that after the cross would come the resurrection. We can know that acts of compassion are not futile because every gift we give in His name, He receives (Matthew 25:4.)

RTTP #3

2010-11-12T19:27:00.000-08:00

TOP TEN BILL MURRAY ROLES

I won't go into why, but today I thought I heard that Bill Murray was dead. I misheard, fortunately. But it me think again about one of the only actors working today that will inspire my attendance, just because he's in the film (unless it's a new Garfield movie, of course.)
Most Saturday Night veterans have a hard time sustaining a long team film career. Chevy Chase made some good funny films after a year on the show and then went on to make truly heinous ones. (Fortunately, he is funny again on Community after years of anti-funny following Christmas Vacation.) Dan Aykroyd's last good film was in 1997 (Gross Point Blank), Eddie Murphy's 1999 (Bowfinger) and Mike Myers has had over a decade since the first Austin Powers film. (I found Shrek to be funny, but Murphy and Myers have long since killed the good will for that film with lousy sequels and TV specials.)
But Murray is arguably the third funniest screen personality after Buster Keaton and the combined Marx brothers.

So my top ten:

1) Phil Conners in GROUNDHOG'S DAY - A very thoughtful film and a very profound film.
It was voted by some group or other as the most spiritual film. But still a very funny film.
Phil is a weather man but more importantly, a jerk. But the process of living the same day again and again makes a better man of him. Murray manages the transformation of redemption quite ably (much better than in SCROOGED.)
Quote: People like blood sausage too, people are morons.

2) Carl Spackler in CADDYSHACK - Perhaps Murray's most insane character, the ground's keeper with a vendetta against a gopher (that looks like a groundhog.)
Quote: So I've got that going for me.

2)Jeff Slater in TOOTSIE - Another comic masterpiece. Murray plays a small role as Michael's (Dustin Hoffman) boyfriend. But he steals much of the picture playing the straight (in many ways) man.
Quote: That is one nutty hospital.

3) Bill Murray in ZOMBIELAND - One of the great cameos. Of course he would survive a zombie apocalypse out of sheer coolness and laid back disposition.
Quote: Garfield, maybe.

4)Dr. Peter Venkman in GHOSTBUSTERS - The character Phil in the show Modern Family tries to prove bravery by bragging about how many times he watched this film. There are a few scary special effects, but basically the film is just hysterical. Venkman is described as a game show host in the film and he does achieve that level of smarminess.
Qoute: Yes, the man has no neck. (That's the TV dubbed version of the line. The line in the film is about a thousand times better.)

5) Herman Blume in RUSHMORE - This is the film in which critics began to recognize the genius of Murray. It was always there, but they finally started to figure out that he wasn't just funny. (But funny is plenty.) A man in a romantic rivalry with a high schooler could be just sad, but it is so much more.
Quote: She's my Rushmore.

6) Bob Harris in LOST IN TRANSLATION - I believe this is the only Murray film that was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. He was actually talked about for Best Actor, but the Academy does not have that much sense.
He was hard to believe as a Big Hollywood Action Star, but he was quite believable in his tender interaction with Scarlet Johannson.
Qoute: Whatever he whispered into Scarlet's ear.

7) Frank Quinn in GET LOW - Bill Murray, one of the great comic actors versus Robert Duvall, one of the great comic actors. So much fun to see them together. His funeral director gives Murray another chance to showcase his patented world weariness and cynicism.
Qoute: I sold 26 of the the ugliest cars in the middle of December with the wind blowing so far up my ass I was farting snowflakes into July.

8) Bunny Breckinridge in ED WOOD - This role almost makes it based on the name alone. But this tale of the world's worst director is Tim Burton's best film. Bunny, you may not be surprised, is not a terribly masculine character. A small role again, but wonderful.
Quote:What about glitter? When I was a headliner in Paris, audiences always liked it when I sparkled.

9) Tripper in MEATBALLS - Yes, imaginary reader (I don't want you, or me, to think I'm so delusional as to think someone reads this after I write it) you are wondering where is STRIPES? That is a better film than MEATBALLS, but his character has funnier lines in this film. Especially in the morning announcements.
Quote: Kids are starving in India and you're walking around with a sombrero full of peanuts.

10) Badger in FANTASTIC MR. FOX - I was going to rant about how Bill Murray should never do voiceover work because of GARFIELD and OSMOSIS JONES, but this makes the list. His second film on the list with Wes Anderson, but there are good Anderson films that didn't even make the list. A film starring in a film makes an awesome film. But his small parts often manage to make a film awesome as well.
Quote: The cuss you are.

I don't think there is another Saturday Night Live star that has ten great films. And Murray has more good films that did not make this list. Very cool.

Another Random Top Ten List

2010-11-10T21:57:00.000-08:00

Commercially Produced Candy

Not the best, just what I like.

1) BUTTERFINGERS - This will not be the only chocolate/peanut butter candy on the list, I love that stuff. Tastes the best and has an interesting texture. If the chocolate is pealed away, it is sort of like a wood chip, splintering in the same way. Love these.

2) PIXIE STICKS - Really just artifically colored and flavored sugar in paper straw containers. What's wrong with that?

3) GOOD AND PLENTIES - You have to love black licorice, and I do. Plus, "Choo-choo Charlie was engineer" will never leave my head.

4) JUNIOR MINTS - Second only in the world of mints to Girl Scout Cookies, but they're, you know, cookies. Fun to smash between your fingers as well. (Honorary nod to Peppermint Patties.)

5) PEZ - Okay, the candy doesn't case that great, but it's alright. But the toy dispencers rule. The little heads of everything from Little Orphan Annie to Han Solo, from Tigger to Bilbo Baggins. Even featured in a classic Seinfeld episode (as many fine candies have been.)

6) REESE'S (CUP & PIECES) - Gotta love the classic PB & C match-up in the little paper wrapper, but ET and Elliot's brand can not be forgotten either.

7) FLICKS - The little chocolate candies from Ghiradellis that just make the list because I used to get rolls of these at the movies. Big nostalgia points.

8) MILK DUDS - The carmel chewiness just kills the teeth. But it is tasty and is fine theater food as well.

9) MILKY WAY - Boy, the milk candy just pulls it out at the end here. These are especially good straight from the freezer. (This spot almost went to THREE MUSKETEERS which are also excellent freezer candy.)

10) EVERLASTING GOBSTOPPERS - If it's good enough for Willy Wonka, it's good enough for me.

Random Top Ten List

2010-11-08T07:16:00.000-08:00

Top Ten Sitcoms

1) CHEERS - Managed to have characters we cared about and yet remain very funny. Classic one liners (What's up Norm? My nipples, it's freezing out there.), slap stick and subtle character based comedy.
Also survived and thrived with character changes (Coach to Woody, Diane to Rebecca) which killed shows like M*A*S*H and News Radio. Also was able to spin off an excellent show when it left the air (Frasier). Good guest characters like Harry the Hat and Andy, Andy.
As a conservative, I love that writer Rob Long and Cliff the postman have gone on as advocates of conservative institutions and causes.
It even managed a decent final episode (though not as great as the final episode of "Newhart". But of course, "Newhart" is not making the list.)
Everyone join in on the "Kelly, Kelly" song.

2) ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT - In an interview, show creator, Mitchell Hurwitz. recently admitted that he set such a high standard of cramming jokes, plot lines and characters into a small period of time in this classic that he was having a hard time reaching his own standards in his new sitcom.
Yeah, it could have raunchy jokes, but they were funny and they flew by fast. Most of the characters were morally repugnant, but they were so personally unselfaware that you forgave them. Briliant use of Charlie Brown theme songs and "Afternoon Delight".
Before the phrase "Jumping the Shark" jumped the shark, they had Henry Winkler acutally jump a shark in the most casual manner possible.
David Cross was hysterical with his thoughtless double entendre and his business card for himself as an analyst and therapist was awful and awesome.
Everyone join in on their own chicken dance.

3) SEINFELD - I didn't appreciate this show until I realized you weren't supposed to like the characters. This show has added an amazing number of catch phrases to the culture ("Yadda, Yadda, Yadda", "Not that there's anything wrong with that", etc.).
It was great to have Jerry's best stand up bits committed to film (I love the one about sports fans really rooting for laundry.)
It was never really about Nothing, but it cleverly set up situations where very little happened in a Chinese Resteraunt or a parking lot.
And I met Julia Louise Dreyfuss and she was very nice. (Though the final episode was not as great as "Newhart"'s or "Cheers"'s or probably even "Bossom Buddies"'s.)
Everyone join in on the Elaine dance.

4) THE OFFICE - The BBC version. The American version has had great moments, but also such lows that it doesn't make it.
But Ricky Gervais' two seasons and a special are such artful pain that it has never been matched. (Though Ricky came close with the wonderful Extras.)
It captures the most awkward moments that have ever taken place in the workplace.
Everyone eat some stapler jello in this show's honor.

5) MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE - The best family sitcom of all time. This show was willing to have great absurdist touches (such as the hamster in a hamster ball that roamed the country throughout a season) but it also had real touches such as deciding which bills to pay based on the color of the paper (obviously red is more urgent than white.)
Bryan Cranston has gone on to win Emmys for his work in Breaking Bad, but he was brilliant in this show as well. Jane Kaczmarek was also great capturing both the nuture and the neurotic nature of motherhood.
Malcolm was the narator and the title character, but I always was rooting for the fourth born, Dewey and his special ed class was one of the bolder and funniest of sitcom inventions.
Everyone sing along Meow Mix song.

6) THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW - Pioneer in meta comedy, being a comedy show about the making of a comedy show (while also a domestic comedy.) Van Dyke was one of the great slapstick comics but he also came across as a real person. You really believed he was in love with the graceful and lovely Mary Tyler Moore.
The Walnut Alien Invasion show was a great science fiction spoof and yet also really scared me as a kid.
Carl Reiner was originally supposed to star in the show, and kudos to him for recognizing that DVD would do a better job. And Reiner was great as ego mad TV star Alan Brady. Also wonderful was Richard Deacon as Mel (whose great work on Leave It To Beaver was sadly never recognized with an Emmy.)
The only real weakness in the show was Larry Mathers as one of the most annoying child stars in sitcom history (and that competition is fierce.)
Everyone trip over the ottoman (or not.)

7) THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW - If only for the single episode,"Chucles Bites the Dust" which had Mary laughing at a funeral, this show might have made the list. A great cast of characters that were lovable and yet very funny.
Lou Grant drank too much and was gruff, but someone you would like to work for ("You've got spunk. I hate spunk.")
Ted Baxter was an dim, ego driven newscaster that one believes can easily be found on the local news.
Georgette was one of the sweetest characters ever, and Sussanne was one of sluttiest and they got along in this universe.
Sadly, its spinoffs (Rhoda and Phylis) were not that great and just deprived the show of great characters.
Everyone join that show ending hug.

8) THE BOB NEWHART SHOW - No one did a drunk, let alone a one way telephone call, as well as Bob. Great supporting characters and wonderful writing made this a classic.
Newhart managed two other decent shows ("Newhart" and the sadly unappreciated "Bob".)
Everyone join in on some Mu Gu Guy Pan.

9) 30 ROCK - The one current sitcom that makes the list (Community and Modern Family might make the list if this was made in the future.) Great balance of the absurd and sly satire. Though made by political liberals, they really do take on targets from both sides of the political spectrum.
Everyone agree we are tired of this bit of using "Everyone".

10) NEWS RADIO - Barely bits out WKRP as one of the great workplace comedies. But this one makes the list for the wonderful out of not where season ending episodes such as News Radio in Space and News Radio on the Titanic.

(The Simpsons is arguably one of the great sitcoms, but I'm saving it for a favorite animated shows list.)

The Social Network

2010-10-16T23:34:00.000-07:00

We all have those humiliations seared into our memories. The time a joke told at our expense made the whole class laugh. Being picked last for the team or not at all. Being stood up for a date.

And we imagined revenge. Not the binding and gagging and tossing over a cliff kind of revenge (okay, I’ve thought of that too) but the French proverb “Success is the best revenge” type. We dream of achieving such
incredible success that those who treated us poorly will deeply regret it and the whole world will see us for the phenomenal individuals we are.

Say, you found a company with a very popular product that is valued around the world and in the process become a multibillionaire. Then surely you would have the respect of one and all. Unless you’re Mark Zuckerberg, the
co-founder of Facebook about whom a major film has just been released that portrays him as a …. let’s use the polite word… jerk.

“The Social Network”, written by Aaron Sorkin (“The West Wing”) and directed by David Fincher (“Se7en”), follows Zuckerberg from his early days at Harvard, pulling rude computer pranks, through his rise to become one of the most powerful CEOs in the world. And the film strongly implies that his motivation for technological and corporate innovation come from such slights as the girl who broke up with him and the elite university clubs that ignored him.

Zuckerberg is portrayed as a brilliant geek sorely lacking in social skills, deceptive and manipulative in his rise to fortune. He seems at times to be the embodiment of Matthew 16:26 (“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”) except at times it’s unclear if he had a soul to begin with.

Much of the story is told in the form of flashbacks as the film follows legal proceedings of lawsuits filed by rivals and also his best friend, yet it should always be kept in mind that this is a fictionalized version of the events. Much of the history told in the story is not buried in those very lawsuits with very strict nondisclosure agreements.

An interesting thing about the film is that some viewers will see the film as a success story and others will see it as a tragedy. Zuckerberg (portrayed quite ably by “Zombieland”’s Jesse Eisenberg) did achieve something very special in the creation of Facebook. Though a recent some consider it a gimmicky time-waster, it is also arguably the most innovative tool for communication since the Internet itself, created by a man before he hit his mid twenties.

On the other hand, some view Zuckerberg’s falling out with his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), as cautionary tale against putting self interest first. (This theme is suggested in the film’s tagline, “You don’t make 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”)

And you know, kids, you’re both right. This film is about a flawed guy who achieves some amazing things. If this world is all there is, then it’s worth cutting some ethical corners when the stakes are so high. But if there is a God watching us and wanting the best for us and an eternity waiting after this life, then something very vital has been left out of the equation.

Now you may still be saying, “Why should I see this film? I don’t even go on Facebook!” Well, you don’t have to be an astronaut to watch “The Right Stuff”. And the reasons you should see this film include rich, funny dialogue, sharp performances and some interesting moral questions to ponder. In Facebook parlance, I think it’s worth clicking “Confirm” rather than “Ignore”.

Strength in What Remains

2010-10-14T20:17:00.000-07:00

This book by Tracey Kidder tells the story of a man named Deo that escaped the genocide of Burundi to live as a one of the homeless of New York City. It's a great, inspiring story. But the story the stuck with me was the story of a Catholic school where the Priest/School Master insisted that the Hutus and Totsies treat each other as brothers. When the miltia came, they demanded to know who who the Totsies were. They wouldn't say, and the milia tried to kill them all. (Killing 40 out of 140 students.)
I couldn't help but think of Galations 3:28 -
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
They were willing to pay the full cost that Christ paid to live out this truth.

Way Down East

2010-09-21T22:07:00.000-07:00

I know that some readers may be disappointed by the lack of timeliness for these monthly movie reviews. You might find that by the time I blog the film reviewed is no longer in theaters.
You have to understand I don’t have access to the critics’ screenings offered to the big time reviewers.
Anyway, on to this month’s review of “Way Down East”, a silent feature that was quite a hit when it debuted in 1920.
Okay, ninety years is a tad long of a wait for a review, even from me. But this drama (perhaps better defined as a melodrama) provides an interesting examination of the moral views of the time, and ours.
It’s the tale of Anna Moore (played by one of the first movie stars, Lillian Gish), a young woman who cares for her poor, sick mother. Seeking financial aid, she goes to visit her distant, wealthy relatives. The cousins are embarrassed by their poor relation and offer no help. But at one their parties, Anna meets Lennox Sanderson, a true scalawag. (A title card introduces him as a man with “three interests: ladies, Ladies, LADIES!”)
After Anna rebukes Lennox for his attempts at seduction, she agrees to marry him. The cad arranges a phony wedding ceremony followed by a honeymoon, then abandons Anna, who finds she is with child. Adding to the heroine’s trouble, her mother dies and so does her newborn child. (There is an interesting, theologically problematic scene wherein Anna baptizes her dying son herself, fearing for his soul.)
Anna tries to put her past behind her. She goes to work for a wealthy and yet pious farm family. David Bartlett, the handsome son, falls in love with her and wants to marry her. But when family gossip informs David’s father, Squire Bartlett, of Anna’s past, his actions are swift and harsh and cloaked in Biblical terminology. We then have the film's action packed set piece and Anna is stranded on an ice flow. (The director, D.W. Griffith, bogarted this straight from "Uncle Tom's Cabin". I doubt Griffith, the maker of "Birth of a Nation" was a big abolitionist literature fan.)
I was surprised by how frankly the film dealt with the issues of sexuality and religious judgment. The movie deals with the hypocrisy of men’s immorality being winked though less scandalous behavior of women leads to shunning. The consequence -- condemning a child without a father rather than providing help and comfort -- must have been strong tonic for the time. And viewing trailers for an upcoming teen comedy, “Easy A”, I’ve thought the progress of dealing with such issues in the popular culture has not been all for the best.
From what I’ve read about the film (again, no advanced critics’ screenings for me), “Easy A” is about a virginal high school girl (Olive, played by Emma Stone) who pretends to bed high school boys to enhance their reputations. She then falls under the harsh judgment of the high school Christian club that assures her that she will need to answer to a higher power.
Now I could be wrong, but from what I’ve seen of the new film, it seems to deal with the issues of sexuality and religion with much less nuance than a film made nearly a century ago. It seems all of the Christians in the film are narrow-minded and petty. In “Way Down East”, some Christians are depicted as mean, but some exude grace. In the new film, it seems that sex is a topic of humor and that it would be crazy for anyone to think there could be any negative consequences. (Only Christians could be so crazy, to still believe in avoiding sexual immorality as Paul teaches in Romans 13: 13 or I Corinthians 6:18.)
It is wrong for Christians to judge the sins of others, but it is also wrong to fail to teach that God does have standards for sexual behavior. We should be people with tender and loving hearts. God, as a loving Father, provided sex as great gift in the context in marriage. All around us we see the victims of abuse of God’s gift, whether it be men addicted to online porn, women selling themselves for money (or even a false display of affection) and, yes, children who, according to studies, are less likely to prosper without the care of two loving parents.
As a church, we need to be faithful to not condemn those suffer from the sin that is common to us all, but rather comfort and strengthen those that are weak.
To find a source that deals much better with these issues, you might want to go to a popular novel. I believe the title “Easy A” comes from a work that is now 160 years old, “The Scarlett Letter”. Sexual sin and religious hypocrisy are nothing new. But fortunately, God’s grace is very old, yet ever fresh.

GET LOW

2010-08-20T21:30:00.000-07:00

I had a good time at my dad’s memorial service. I know that might sound strange, but most people there enjoyed the service. There were good stories, laughter and plenty of food afterward. It was a party. Really, the only thing missing was my Dad. I wish he could have been there.
In recently released film, “Get Low”, the character Felix Bush (Robert Duvall) wants to attend his own funeral. He wants to throw a “funeral party.” He says he wants to give people an opportunity to tell their stories about him. But Bush does not expect the stories to be humorous or heartwarming. He has lived for forty years as a hermit with a reputation as a violent lunatic.
Bush first goes to the local pastor and asks if he can buy himself a funeral, but the pastor (Gerald McRaney) astutely observes that Bush is trying to buy forgiveness. He tells Bush that forgiveness can not be purchased but is a free gift of God. We must confess our sin and receive the free gift through Christ’s sacrifice. Bush leaves and finds a funeral home director (Bill Murray) who is more than happy to take his money for a “funeral party”.
As the film follows the preparations for the funeral, we begin to learn more of Bush’s story in bits and pieces. We learn about his sin and his ultimate failure to atone for it on his own, but forgiveness and restoration is found.
“Get Low” is based on a true story, set in Tennessee of the 1930’s. Told at a leisurely pace, the story does not offer summer distractions of CGI effects and explosions (okay, there is a fire at the beginning of the film), but it does offer its own pleasures.
Bill Murray offers his dry wit within a character of that time and place. Murray has been funny for over thirty years now, while many other comedians have worn out their welcome.
In fact, one of the real joys of the film is seeing old faces. Hollywood has always celebrated youth and “physical perfection”. But there is a special pleasure in seeing the aged faces of Duvall and Sissy Spacek. Celebrated actors when they were making films decades ago in classics like “The Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now”, “Carrie” and “Coal Miner’s Daughter” respectively, neither was known primarily for looks. But now there is a definite pleasure in seeing the lines and spots of age in faces of such fully lived lives.
“Get Low” can be seen as the third film in Duvall’s faith trilogy, the first two being “Tender Mercies” and “The Apostle”.
“Tender Mercies” won Duvall the Oscar for Best Actor and earned another Oscar for screen writer Horton Foote. (It is probably not a coincidence that Gerald McRaney’s character in “Get Low” is Pastor Horton.) “Tender Mercies” features one of the most realistic and moving depictions of a man’s gradual conversion to Christianity in any film.
“The Apostle” was written and directed by Duvall himself. There is no shortage in American media of depictions of clergy who fall into sin and hypocrisy. But this film does so with even more powerful depictions of God’s love and grace.
Each of these films is like a true Christian funeral. There is pain and tears, but joy and hope overcome.

A Fair Entry

2010-08-15T17:12:00.000-07:00

To get in to the fair this year, most Andersons entered something. The fair cost $9 and the entry fee was $2. Since I got a $2 prize, it was free. (Paige also entered a poem and got a 3rd with a $2 check. Jill's graphic arts entry got 1st & Best in Section for a $5 check. Mindy's doll should have got better than a 4th Place with no check. But her project will at least make a decent present for someone.)

So here is what got me in the fair:

GRAPES

Great are the splendors of Sonoma County

Rarely can those splendors be adequately described

Among those who attempt to do, are poets

Poetry though, is not my forte

Earning free fair entry is enough for me

Sonoma County will need to look elsewhere for someone adequate to panegyrize

"Dream On, Dream On" - Inception

2010-07-28T20:14:00.000-07:00

You know how you watch a trailer for a movie sometimes, and you feel like you know the whole movie? (The girl thinks the boy is in love with another girl because she saw them hugging but really it was his long lost sister and the only thing they don’t show is the last kiss and final credits.) After I saw the trailer for “Inception”, I not only didn’t feel like I knew everything in the movie, I wasn’t sure what I had just seen. Which is cool -- seeing a movie that has surprises.
So you might want to not read another thing and go out and see it. Or you might want to know just a little bit. “Inception” is a heist film. You know (last “you know”-- promise), the “Ocean’s Eleven” kind of thing where there’s a big job to pull off, so the leader (Leo DiCaprio) puts together a gang to pull off the big job. The gang includes grizzled veterans and a newcomer to the world of crime, Ellen Page (the perky little teen from “Juno”.) But they aren’t stealing money or diamonds but ideas. And not breaking into a vault but into minds through dreams. Yeah, so it’s different than the average heist film.
And you know (sorry, I thought I was done) how in heist films there’s always that extra twist to make the job tougher? The thing that makes this job tougher is that the team doesn’t need to steal an idea from a dream (extraction), but rather leave an idea (inception).
As with any heist film, there are plenty of fights, chases and explosions, but since some of these take place in dreams, they don’t always have to follow the pesky rules of gravity, time and space. There are rules, though. The film clearly sets up rules for the dream world and fairly follows them. (The writer-director is Christopher Nolan, who brings from the Batman films the experience necessary to make a fantastic world seem real.)
But why should one care about what happens in a dream? After all, dreams aren’t real. We tend to discount dreams as random images created by body chemicals and electronic charges in our sleep.
In the Bible, a dream is rarely just a dream. In Genesis 41, the Pharaoh of Egypt was warned in a dream about years of abundance and famine. Daniel, like Joseph, rose out of slavery to the heights of power based on his ability to interpret dreams. And Joseph was told about his Son Jesus in a dream.
Dreams can clue us in to our greatest fears and desires. I believe God can still, if He chooses, speak to us through dreams.
Just as Leo and company enter the dreams of others in “Inception”, we need to bring God even into our dreams, our deepest hopes and fears. II Corinthians 10:5 says “we must take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”. Even our dreams.

"My Father's Daughter" is Not a Jerk

2010-07-15T08:30:00.000-07:00

“I was born a poor black child.” That line always made me laugh when I heard Steve Martin say it on his LP “Let’s Get Small”. (I’ll explain what an LP is later, kids, if you care.) He was such a WASPy guy (especially, for some odd reason, with his prematurely white hair.)
But I would think the line would some incongruous coming from the lips of Hannah Pool as well, the author of the memoir, "My Father's Daughter: A Story of Family and Belonging". Sure, she is black. But she is also British with the accompanying accent and she is a 30ish year old columnist for The Guardian. Her position of privilege makes the “poor” part of the phrase seem unlikely.
But when was born to a poor family (by our standards) in the
African nation of Eritrea. She was put in an orphanage and it was there that a British academic and his American wife adopted her. Her adopted parents were told that the girl they named Hannah was an orphan. But decades later, Hannah Pool received a letter from a brother in Eritrea. It was then she discovered she
was not an orphan. Though her mother had died in child birth, her father was still alive and anxious to see her again.
The book is the story of Pool’s fascinating journey to meet and get to know the family she never knew she had.
Pool’s skills as a journalist serve the story well as a Travel Log, introducing the reader to this small African nation with great beauty but that still suffers from a history of colonialism, poverty and war. She brings an interesting perspective on the nation’s customs, a liberated woman in a place
where women are expected to be demure and marriages are usually still arranged.
But the most interesting dynamic in the book is her interaction with her new found family. One of the great questions of her life is ‘Why was she put in an orphanage?’ As she learns parts of the answer to that question, she finds herself jealous of those who were able to stay with their father. But she realizes that her brothers and sisters may well be jealous of the advantages
she has as growing up with the riches of the Western world.
Pool, an atheist, is uncomfortable with the constant praise and thanksgiving her family make to God for their reunion with her. She probably wouldn’t be thrilled when I say that her book reminds of the longing every person that has ever lived has felt without a relationship with the Living God.
Romans 8:23 says, “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” We all feel the need for more, for a parent that not only accepts us, but can fully understand us. God not only wants to
adopt us, make us His own, but His knowledge of us is even more complete than any Earthly parent (by blood or law.)
Another book that demonstrates from a theological standpoint the longing for a true Father is Timothy Keller’s “The Prodigal God”, an expansion on Jesus’ parable of The Prodigal Son’ that makes clear that we are all needy children with a Father anxious for a reunion with us.

(“My Father’s Daughter” by Hannah Pool is available from Penguin Books. “The Prodigal God” by Timothy Keller is available from Dutton Adult. And you can see Steve Martin with his adoptive African American in the 1979 film “The Jerk” which is justly rated R.)

BABIES, BABIES, BABIES

2010-06-25T22:29:00.000-07:00

There was once a great story on NPR’s “This American Life” about a man who had an idea for a cable channel called “Puppies”. It would just keep the camera focused on puppies, 24 hours a day (with crawls advertising dog food and flea medicine). The guy felt that people would be happy just looking at puppies yawn, bite and scratch. I think he’s right.
The same kind of thinking went into the documentary, “Babies”. French director Thomas Balmes thought people would be fascinated just to watch babies. If not for twenty four hours - then at least for an hour and a half or so. He was right, of course.
The film was released in France in 2009 and in the United States this year, with a DVD release soon. I can’t imagine much was changed with these various releases, aside from translating the credits.
The film follows the first year of life for four babies in four families in four very different parts in the world. The families are all relatively well off in their cultures. But “well to do” means something different in a western urban center and a third world farm. Hattie and Mari are first born daughters in big cities, San Francisco and Tokyo respectively. Ponijao and Bayar are younger brothers growing among animals as well as siblings (again, respectively, in Opuwo, Namibia and Bayanchandnami, Mongolia.)
We don’t hear a lot of talking, even from the babies’ parents, and I only understood Hattie’s folks, who spoke English, because there is no dubbing or subtitles. The only editorial comment comes from the editing. We see Hattie’s father using a lint brush on his daughter’s PJs. A contrast is found in Panijao crawling through the dirt and sampling the taste of various stones.
There is, of course, quite a contrast in material possessions. Mari lives among the latest of gadgets and electronics to be found in contemporary Japan. Bayer’s family has a TV, but the family probably wasn’t in line for the premiere of the iPad.
One can’t help but wonder as one watches what the best environment for a baby would be. Surely we wouldn’t want a pregnant woman riding a motorcycle through rough mountain roads, like Bayar’s parents. But I would never want to subject any child of mine to the vapid song praising “Mother Earth” heard in Hattie’s playgroup.
I loved the free exposure that Bayar and Ponijao had to animals. But Hattie and Mari would grow up in a world with much more ready access to books. Is it better to be an only child with one’s parents’ undivided attention or to have siblings one can look up to and enjoy?
There certainly are advantages for children in some cultures. One can’t doubt the advantages of western medicine. But there must also be advantages to the freedom of living much more freely in the world of nature. We often think we must provide the perfect environment for our children’s growth and development.
I was thinking of this when looking at Exodus chapter 2. God needed a leader to guide the “Children” of Israel to freedom. And like all leaders (like all people, really), this leader started as a baby. The sons of the Israelites were being slaughtered by the Egyptians. So a wise Israelite woman allowed her son to be adopted by an Egyptian woman and raised in the court of the Pharaoh. I’m sure Moses’ mother would have been appalled if she watched a documentary on everything Moses’ adopted family did as they raised him. But God was in control.
As the song says, Jesus loves all the children of the world. As should we. And we should work to see that all babies, children, parents, well….everyone knows of God’s love for us. Jesus always took time for babies (Luke 18:15). So should we.

"Heaven" by Lisa Miller - a book review

2010-05-11T23:49:00.000-07:00

When I was a little kid, first grade or so, I had a nightmare about Chilly Willie, the penguin cartoon character. Chilly was out in the ocean and he drowned. But that wasn’t the scary part. The scary part was seeing the bird sitting on a cloud in heaven. And he was going to be there, doing nothing for ever. That boredom was what scared me.
That’s why I was happy to see that Lisa Miller, in her book Heaven (Harper Collins 2010), included a chapter entitled “Is Heaven Boring?” Because a lot of adults wonder about that, it isn’t just the mini-me. Miller explores many interesting questions about heaven and the answers provided by the monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) for the last few millennia. Ideas about Heaven from culture (Dante) to pop culture (The Lovely Bones) are also presented.
Miller is Jewish, the religion editor of Newsweek and skeptical herself about the existence of heaven. But her interviews with followers of various faiths are fair and respectful. She calls Anne Graham Lotz (Billy’s daughter) a friend and listens politely (and uncomfortably) to Anne pleas to take the Christian path to Heaven. She also writes about her respect for prominent atheists.
It is interesting to follow the history of views of Heaven through the years and the various ways heaven is viewed today. Is Heaven a physical place or purely spiritual? Does one get entrance to Heaven through faith or works or does everyone get in? How does one’s view of Heaven affect the way one lives life? The varied answers to these questions that Miller finds are intriguing, sometime funny, and thought provoking.
I knew a lot of the things that Miller writes about. I remembered from my seminary days about Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized babies would not get into heaven. (The Bishop of Hippo wrote that just as the thief on the cross would enter Heaven based on his faith, though he was not baptized; babies who are baptized enter Heaven though they have not faith.) I hadn’t known (or remembered) that the church father went on to argue that there was a special baby hell, wherein baby souls wouldn’t really even notice their torture. (Baby hell is a concept worth pondering.)
I was unaware of some of the Muslim theories of the intermediary state between death and the Resurrection. This is a theory that two angels with green eyes and long fangs test the newly dead with a series of questions. Those who pass the test with flying colors will get a window view of heaven. Second tier corpses will get a window to hell with the assurance that they won’t go there. Third level is pretty bad because your grave will be set afire and fourth is worse because your sins are turned into wild animals that will attack you.
I also found fascinating the archeological evidence that in ancient Israel, people kept their ancestors bones under there house and may have consulted and/or worshiped them.
Miller can, of course, present no definitive conclusions with her research. But she seems to believe that it is a challenge to rationalism to believe in Heaven and is very uncomfortable with the idea that there is only one route to get there.
Obviously, these are difficult questions. But I believe in a powerful God who can do as He chooses. And that He has graciously choose to give life to His people after life on this earth.
And as to that question of whether Heaven is boring, I came to my own conclusions when I attended camp as a kid, a few years after that penguin dream. A speaker at camp pointed to the beauty around us (the spectacular Sierra Nevada Mountains) and the fun we’d had though the week (swimming, games, archery, great food) and said that a God who thought up such great things would have even better things to come. For me, that answered my fear. That’s when I trusted Christ for forgiveness of my sins and began looking forward to Heaven.

Let Me Just Say...Of All the Films I've Seen....

2010-04-27T00:52:00.001-07:00

"Troll 2" is one on them. On Hulu!

But I Could See That For Free

2010-04-15T22:48:00.000-07:00

3-D is the current big thing in the multiplex. Last year people paid record amounts to see Alien Blue People in 3-D, this year people flocked to see Wonderland, Greek Gods and Dragons leap off the screen; with Living Toys, Piranha and Witches yet to come. People have always gone to the movies for spectacle.
Historical and Biblical epics brought people into worlds beyond their imagination. Science fiction, fantasy and horror films are like shared dreams on the screen. Comedies delight with outlandish situations that could never happen in real life. And, perhaps, Hollywood’s greatest special effect has always been supernaturally beautiful people in love.
Yet there has always been another side to cinema: simple tales of ordinary people. Rarely have such films been the blockbusters. War, monsters, epic disasters…that is the stuff of blockbusters. But some have always been interested in the amazing opportunity to observe other people living, talking, brooding, celebrating…just living.
One of the most acclaimed films of this kind is Louis Malle’s My Dinner with Andre (1981). That’s pretty much what the film was: two friends eating dinner. But their conversation was lively and entertaining. Issues of philosophy and morality and meaning were the subjects of this conversation between two intelligent and interesting men. People through the years have enjoyed their company.
Not many people would seek out the company of the title character of writer/director Noah Baumbach’s Greenberg (2010). Ben Stiller plays a forty year old man recenty released from a mental institution. He once had a promising career as a musician but argued his way out of a record deal. So he went into carpentry, but his aptitude for that profession seems marginal at best. The film observes Greenberg as he dog-sits for his vacationing brother in a beautiful home in the Hollywood hills.
Greenberg is hostile, sarcastic and abrasive. His one hobby seems to be writing letters of complaint to newspapers, politicians and corporations that have offended him. He tries to reconnect with friends from his youth, but they have all taken on the responsibilities of families and jobs, leaving him behind. The one connection he is able to make is with his brother’s personal assistant, Florence, a charming but insecure woman in her twenties (a winning performance by Greta Gerwig.)
But Greenberg even sabotages his relationship with Florence, picking fights, criticizing her stories…just being a jerk. When someone quotes to Greenberg the old line, “Youth is wasted on the young”, Greenberg responds, “I’d take that one further, life is wasted on people.” We see Greenberg abuse alcohol and drugs, enter a casual and thoughtless sexual relationship with Florence, neglect his responsibility to Mahler the German Shepherd….There are a number of awkward scenes in the film that difficult to watch. People might reasonably ask, “I wouldn’t want to spend time with this person in real life, why would I want to pay money to spend time with him?”
It’s a good question. I appreciated the reminder that there are some wounded people in this world that need help. Those people are also difficult to help. As Florence says in the film, “Hurt people hurt people.”
Those hurt, despairing, abrasive people need Christ’s love.
I had a friend in youth ministry who loved Star Trek. He once told me that the reason he loved it was because he loved the idea of seeking out The Undiscovered Country (Star Trek IV). But one day, a counselor pointed out to him that the real adventure, the real undiscovered country, was to be found in getting to know another human heart and mind.

Can't Live Up to the Hype

2010-03-23T23:30:00.000-07:00

It can be embarrassing being behind the curve. Not that this is new to me. I not only don’t have an I-Phone, I don’t have a cell phone. No HD TV in our house. Our cars don’t have GPS. And as late as the beginning of March, I hadn’t seen Avatar.
The film that has now made more money than any other film in history hadn’t got any of my dollars. The film that was on all kinds of Best of 2009 lists wasn’t on my list of films I’d seen. Which, since I’m the semi-official film commentator of The Communicator, just didn’t seem right.
My daughter Jill was also feeling some pressure to see the film. Several of her friends had seen Avatar multiple times and were telling her it was a must.
Many of the things I read about the film made it sound like a must. I read that it had conquered technological barriers. The theory known as the “Uncanny Valley” holds that we have no problem seeing cartoons of people. However, the closer those depictions get to reality – while still being just a little bit off -- our senses rebel. Reviewers argued that the director of the film, James Cameron, had overcome “The Uncanny Valley” not only with his creation of humanoid figures (a blue alien race called the Navi) but also with computer generated humans in the film that passed for the real thing.
I’ve loved many of James Cameron’s films, especially the Terminator films, The Abyss and even Titanic , which all had pioneering special effects. Critics proclaimed this to be the best presentation yet, utilizing 3-D technology. (The real raves came from those who saw it in 3-D and IMAX.)
I also followed with interest political, environmental and religious arguments about the film. I read that dialogue in the film mirrored the war on terror. Christian magazines and websites discussed the pantheism and ancestor worship in the film. And Cameron took up a phrase from a right wing review of the film, calling it the equivalent of “Death Wish for environmentalists.”
I read articles about people who left the theater depressed to leave the world of the film (Pandora) and come back to Earth. Pandora was a world full of amazing, beautiful, intelligent flora and fauna that included creatures like dinosaurs and dragons. People came out of the film saying “I want to go to there.”
So expectations were raised high by personal testimonials and the media.
Jill and I agreed that this was a film we should experience in the theater, at least with 3-D if not IMAX, rather than wait for DVD. And the Thursday before the Academy Awards was the last chance to see it before Avatar surrendered its 3-D screens to Alice in Wonderland.
And as often happens when expectations were raised high…they came tumbling down. The theater was about half full, with a chiefly older crowd for the matinee. Yeah, the film looked cool, but a not terribly original plot was made less so by conversations we had heard that spoiled any possible surprises.
About halfway through the film, I went to the rest room. When I returned, Jill said, “You missed several stupid things while you were gone.”
It’s a long film, nearly 3 hours, and we both were getting fidgety 2/3rd of the way through.
We left saying, “Well, we can say we saw it.”
I can’t help but wonder what our reaction would be if we saw it opening night with a theater full of enthusiastic viewers. Would we, too, have wanted to join the world of Pandora, rather than be rather happy to get in the car to get home for dinner?
Hype can boomerang that way. Something gets built up to such a degree that expectations just can’t be met.
It happens in the church, of course. We are told that a book by a Christian author will change your life. We hear that so and so preaches a sermon that will make you a new person. That this Bible study or retreat or seminar is all you need to make your marriage or prayer life or attitude all it should be.
And we’re disappointed. We’re individuals, and different things will appeal to different people. “One size fits all” is almost always a lie.
But it is good to know that God can always meet and exceed the hype. He knows what we desire and more importantly, He knows what we need. And if we trust Him, He will in due time meet our needs and give much, much more.
What Isaiah wrote may sound like hype:
“For when you did awesome things that we did not expect,
you came down, and the mountains trembled before you.
Since ancient times no one has heard,
no ear has perceived,
no eye has seen any God besides you,
who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.”
(You can look it up in Isaiah chapter 64.)
But it’s not just hype and hope will come through.
(Avatar is rated PG-13 for language, violence and sensuality.)

Article for Senior (Student Seniors, that is)

2010-03-08T15:16:00.001-08:00

http://youth.ag.org/index.cfm?targetBay=dc5bc32a-70dd-4984-8eea-c735d0ff72cf&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=14692&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1194&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3475&RSS_Source=

THE HURT LOCKER

2010-02-17T20:32:00.000-08:00

Just prior to the beginning of the war in Iraq (the 21st century one) I was working behind the hotel front desk and a group of guest (who obviously been enjoying their wine) were discussing that topic loudly. They were in agreement on the proper policy and on the fact that anyone that believed otherwise was either stupid or evil, but they left room for the possibility that some people on the opposing side might be both.
As someone who was, apparently, stupid or evil or both, I was tempted to voice an opposing position. But as an employee, I knew that entering that conversation wouldn’t be wise. Besides, I prefer to avoid conflict.
That topic of conversation continues to be, oh, what is the phrase…a minefield. Some people thrive on diving into such arguments and find a fierce debate stimulating. Some find any disagreement unpleasant and ulcer inspiring. It’s a personality thing.
“The Hurt Locker” is about a man who is looking for more danger than can be found in the thrill of debate. Jeremy Renner plays Staff Sergeant William James, the leader of an elite American Army bomb squad in Iraq circa 2004. James develops an addiction to the dangers of his job.
On assignments to disarm IEDs and other explosive devices, he takes increasing risks. He takes off the protective gear assigned him. He continues to work on bombs as the clock has been clicking too long. He risks not just his own life, but the lives of his fellow soldiers.
And yet, he can argue all the time that the risks he takes are to protect the lives and property of others, fellow soldiers and the Iraqi civilians. So is he taking the risks he takes for himself, or for others?
In one scene in the film, one of James’ barrack mates finds an odd box under a bed. It is full of fuses and detonators and timers. (It is the “hurt locker” of the film’s title.) James explains that the objects are souvenirs from bombs. He remembers the time and place where he acquired each one. He says they remind him that he is alive.
Many of us have hurt lockers. Our most vivid memories are those times when we were in peril. The Apostle Paul certainly had one. In II Corinthians 11 he wrote:
23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? 30If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.
But I don’t think Paul put himself in danger for the adrenalin rush. Unlike James in the film, or the married person who has an affair to feel the thrill of the forbidden or someone who picks verbal or physical fights just to “feel something”, Paul did what he did because God called him.
God doesn’t call us to live a safe life. But the risks He calls us to take are for the good of others and His glory, not ours. No need to look for trouble. The Beatitudes in Matthew 5 assure us trouble will come. But if we trust in Him, He will give us the strength to face those troubles.
(“The Hurt Locker” is nominated for Best Picture and could well win. It is rated R for violence and language. “Lost” fans should be warned about an unexpected Evangeline Lilly cameo.)

Something I wrote for a Family Humor Contest that didn't win

2010-01-30T11:38:00.000-08:00

Mustard
How hard could have been for my mother to remember what my brother and I wanted on our sandwiches? After all, we both wanted liverwurst. Of course, he wanted the Butcher’s Branch liverwurst, which was sliced. Whereas I wanted the braunsweiger that was a spread. Of course, there was the type of bread for her to keep in mind. Now who was it that wanted wheat, and who wanted white?
When it came to which kind of pickle to put on the sandwich, it was simplicity itself. Dale and I both hated sweet pickles and bread and butter pickles. Dill pickles were, and even to this day are, the only pickles Dale and I will eat. Of course, one of us wanted pickle on the liverwurst sandwich and the other didn’t. (Which was easy, really, because Mom just had to remember it was the opposite of the one who wanted dill pickle on a hamburger and who didn’t.)
Now, Mom could get the liverwurst right, and the bread right, and the pickle right, and even remember which sandwich should be sliced and which shouldn’t. None of it would matter if she got the mustard wrong.
My brother Dale preferred French’s mustard, which was a tad spicier than my Morehouse brand mustard. And if you think we couldn’t tell the difference, then you have gravely underestimated the nuanced elementary school palate.
I continue to be astonished that not only did our mother listen to our finicky requests, but that on a fairly regular basis, she fulfilled them. It’s almost more astonishing than a mother’s capacity to clean up vomit or endure scoreless soccer matches.
My mother could remember all of our dry cereal preferences, how dark we liked our toast, the right cheeses for grilled cheese sandwiches, who liked cinnamon on applesauce and who didn’t, tomato soup or chicken noodle, green or red apples, chips or pretzels (and about those chips – corn or potato), and she knew who preferred low fat and who preferred non-fat milk.
I think of my mother while making lunches for my kids. The boy, the oldest, wants peanut butter and jelly on wheat bread, strawberry jam and only Skippy peanut butter – CRUNCHY. The middle child, girl, would like a piece of steak, but if she can’t have that, she’ll settle for no more than five and no less than three pieces of salami on a flour tortilla. The youngest girl – ham, lettuce, Monterey Jack cheese on a hamburger bun.
I sometimes wonder what’s a more fitting cosmic retribution for those liverwurst sandwich demands: my children’s lunch orders or occasional bouts of gout?

Up in the Air

2010-01-18T22:18:00.001-08:00

Everything is pretty from far away. Especially from high above. A dump, a swamp, a sewage plant… nothing looks too bad if viewed from thousands of feet in the air. Something about keeping a distance.
Last year’s award nominated film, Up in the Air, provides many lovely aerial shots, along with a clever script, humor and competent performances.
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a big believer in keeping his distance. His life is about not letting anything, or especially anyone, close to him. In this film, directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking and Juno) from the novel by Walter Kim, Ryan Bingham has based his life and his philosophy on travel. He spends all but a couple of his weeks in airplanes, conference rooms, rental cars and hotel rooms. The few weeks at “home” are in an apartment with as much personality as the hotel rooms that are more of a home to him.
Bingham has two jobs. One is as roving “life transition consultant” (he fires people for bosses and corporations who would rather avoid such messy situations) and as a motivational speaker. In his speeches he uses the metaphor of a backpack. He asks his audience to imagine a backpack on their shoulders. He asks them to load the knick knacks of their houses into the backpack and then to imagine the feel of the straps on their shoulders. Then he asks them to imagine their furniture and car and house or apartment all in the backpack and the weight they would feel and the impossibility of moving around.
Then he asks the audience to imagine their friends and family in the backpack. He argues that the more attachments one has, the tougher it is to move -- and moving is life. Talking to salespeople, he changes metaphors, and says they are sharks, and if they stop moving, they will die.
There is something to be said about not being attached to material possessions. Jesus has a lot to say about being willing to give up stuff that would weigh us down. But in the film, Bingham reconsiders his attitude toward relationships.
It’s true that keeping people at a distance keeps us from ugly sights (aerial views are prettier). But ultimately, Bingham learns that though people sometimes add to our loads, more often people help us carry our loads.
In his job, he sees people that lose their jobs and have no place to turn, as opposed to the people who face such difficulties with the support of friends and family. The film also has an extensive scene in a Lutheran church. Sure, it’s for a wedding, but it is a reminder of another place support can be found to carry our loads.
The writer of Hebrews, in chapter 25:10, wrote, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
We might be able to travel more quickly on our own. But we won’t necessarily get where we want to be.
(Up in the Air is rated R for sexual situations, language, and nudity.)

My Top Seven Films for 2009

2009-12-31T09:59:00.000-08:00

Sorry, just can't do a top ten left. I saw more than ten movies this year, but there are a lot I've missed as well. All of these films received a theatrical release in 2009 and all but one I saw in the theater. Also, as with all such lists, we're really talking about favorites rather than best. A little historical perspective is needed for a best list. So, starting with my favorite:

1)A SERIOUS MAN - This film had a shot at the list just because it's by the Coen brothers. But last year's BURN BEFORE READING was much further down the list. This tale of a modern Job is pretty sparce on hope, but not on humor. It makes the need for the true Messiah abundantly clear.

2) UP - Again, this was a likely canidate going in, Pixar had not had a loser yet. But this film more heartfelt emotion than one would expect of a cartoon with a giant talking bird named Kevin. Director Pete Doctor captured the joy and heartbreak of a life long relationship in moments. Yeah, I cried, okay. And as a fan of the great art that is "Dogs Playing Poker" (in Jr. High, I had them on a t-shirt), I had to love the dogs in this film.

3) MOON - Mick LeSalle of the SF Chronicle had this on his ten worst films list. I'm a regurlar reader and regular disagreer with Mick. Sam Rockwell gave a (many) great performance(s) in this story of a moon miner who discovers himself (again and again) on a three year mission. A Twilight Zone episode (not a slight at all) that could carry the burden of being stretched another hour. (And is there a less comforting companion than a Kevin Spacey voiced robot?)

4) (500) DAYS OF SUMMER - Zooey Deschanel is cute as can be, of course, but she is required to play a bit of a cypher as the Sid in the film. (SID AND NANCY, see both films and you'll understand.) But Joseph Gordon-Livitt (yeah, the kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN) carrys the film. With this and BRICK and THE LOOKOUT, I'm tempted to go to the theater to see anything he's in that doesn't have 'G.I.' or 'JOE' in the title. As the tag line says, this isn't a love story, but it is a great story about love (or the nature of romantic love.)

5) TAKEN - As Jonah Goldberg wrote, this is great 'Daddy porn'. We learn that the world, especially wives and daughters, would be better off if they would just listen to Dad. And when they don't, he'll go in and clean up the mess without even a "I told you so" because that's the kind of guy he is. Great action without noticable CGI.

6) DISTRICT 9 - Thoughtful science fiction about aliens stranded on Earth. Blatant, but not quite heavy handed references to apartheid (it's set in South Africa). Writer/director Neill Blomkamp obviously benifted from the assistance of producer Peter Jackson, but it's unique style is all his own. (Okay, it does steal abit from the BBC version of "The Office".)Sharlto Copley as Wikus Van De Merwe is such a bureaucratic weasel that it takes time before you realize he a hero. (Not the hero, a distinction that belongs to a "prawn".)

7) ZOMBIELAND - I had to see this as I'm writing a zombie book. And it is good zombie fun. Very funny intentionally, with one of the great cameo apperances of all time. Woody Harellson is the most fun he has been since "Cheers". Difinitely in my list of top five alltime zombie films. A film that teaches the importance of following the rules as well as the necessity of breaking them.

So, that's my top seven. In a month or two, I might fill a top ten but listing what else would have made the list.

Some films I saw this year and enjoyed, but didn't seem list worthy: EXTRACT okay, but not as good as the better episodes of Mike Judge's "King of the Hill"), STAR TREK (fun, but the plot didn't really hold together and I hated Spock's follow your heart speech at the end), PUBLIC ENEMIES, SHERLOCK HOLMES (worth seeing for Robert Downey, Jr.)

But these are some films I haven't seen that I think might round out the top ten: CORALINE, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, THE HURT LOCKER, UP IN THE AIR, BRIGHT STAR, SUNSHINE CLEANING and PRECIOUS. (I haven't seen AVATAR, but from what I've read about it, I can't imagine I'd put what of the most technilogically advanced movies of all time that harangs about the evils of technology on my list. I don't think I'll be able to overcome the tag "Dances with Smurfs" that some wag gave it.)

So to the imaginary readers of this blog (if you're real, let me know), Happy New Year!

It's Not a New Story

2009-11-16T15:22:00.000-08:00

“Bad artists copy…Great artists steal,” Picasso is alleged to have said. It’s a fun exercise to look for the story roots of many films in order to see where the theft occurred.
The Lion King, the popular Disney animated film and Broadway musical, is obviously not a wholly original story. The basic tale of a prince who contemplates revenge for his father’s death at the hand of his uncle is not a story that originated in the Magic Kingdom. It was told long ago under the name of “Hamlet”.
Clueless may have seemed like a dozen other teen comedies but it was actually a rather faithful adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma”.
Joel and Ethan Coen, the Academy Award winning film making team, love to play games with the sources of their film. Fargo opens with a grim title card stating that the story you are about to see is true, with only the names changed to protect the innocent, in the great tradition of “Dragnet”. Which is all hogwash: the tale of kidnapping and murder was completely fictional, as the brothers cheerfully admitted in later interviews.
The Coens convinced the Motion Picture Academy that the screenplay for their comedy O Brother Where Art Thou? should be nominated in the Adapted rather than the Original screenplay category. They claimed it was a retelling of Homer’s “Odyssey”. But the similarities between the two works are amusingly meager.
The Coen’s latest film, A Serious Man, makes no claim to be from any particular source in the credits. But it seems to be quite obviously based on the Biblical book of Job.
The film tells the story of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhbarg), a college physics teacher living in 1967 Minnesota. He soon finds himself engulfed in a series of mini-catastrophes. Admittedly, the trials he faces are nothing compared to those faced by Job. Job suffered the loss of his property, his servants, his livestock and most horrendous of all, his seven sons and three daughters.
Larry’s sufferings are a little more pedestrian. He suffers harassment from a student who tries to bribe him and then threatens a law suit. His children steal from him and treat him with little respect. His wife wants a divorce and forces him to move into a seedy motel down the road. And Larry is assaulted by the unending phone calls of the bureaucracy of the Columbia Record Company insisting he pay for albums he never requested.
Job was called, even by God, a righteous man. Larry is at best, the serious man of the title, striving to live up to the responsibilities and obligations of a husband, father and teacher.
Like Job, Larry believes that God is ultimately responsible for any trials he faces in life. Job had three friends who ministered to him (or plagued him, depending on how you look at it) and tried to explain God’s ways to Job. Larry seeks help from his synagogue’s three rabbis. Their help is rather comparable to the help Job receives from his friends.
On one of these visits to a rabbi, Larry asks, “Why does He allow us to wonder about the whys of life if He never intends to answer?” The rabbi has no answer.
I think we all share in Larry’s frustration. We somehow think that the minor and major sufferings in life would somehow be more bearable if someone would just explain to us why these things happen. If there was a reason, laid out clearly to us and perhaps allowing for a little of our input, then we could happily deal with everything life throws our way.
But it just won’t happen. It didn’t happen for Job and it won’t happen for us.
We do have something that Larry doesn’t appear to have. We have something that Job didn’t fully understand. Job longed for a mediator between God and man.
We know that Jesus came to be a mediator and that He experienced life as we experience it. Therefore, we may still not understand suffering in life, but we know we have a God that experienced it as we do, and He understands it. It may not be all we want. But it’s enough.

A Serious Man is rated R for strong language, sexual situations and nudity.
The Lion King is rated G, but has some strong themes and images that might disturb the very young
Clueless is rated PG-13 for language and sexual suggestion
Fargo is rated R for violence, language and sexual situations
O Brother Where Art Thou? is rated PG-13 for language and comic violence

500 Days of Summer

2009-10-15T22:32:00.000-07:00

“She’s better than my dream girl. She’s real.”
That is my favorite line from a film filled with a lot of clever dialogue, (500) Days of Summer. It’s spoken by Paul (Matthew Gray Gubler) to an unseen interviewer when asked about his long time relationship with his girl friend. He first goes into a long list of the ideal qualities of his Perfect Woman. But then acknowledges he prefers reality.
It’s a key point in this film, which, as its tag line says, “is not a love story. This is a story about love.” Or as the other tag line says, “Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.” The film chronicles the 500 days of a young man named Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in his pursuit of a girl named Summer (Zooey Deschanel). Those days are not presented in chronological order, which is one of many stylized features of this clever comedy.
Tom believes in true love, and Summer scoffs at the idea. He believes there is one perfect girl that he will find and then all of life will fit together. Summer is just looking for a good time. Tom becomes convinced that Summer is his perfect girl and that they are meant for each other. Throughout the film, Tom tries to convince Summer he is right.
The thing I loved about this film is that it skewers many of our society’s false ideas about love and romance.
Tom believes in a love at first sight, that one can trust one’s feelings to know one’s life partner. While it is true that initial attraction can lead to something more, immediate attraction (the pull of hormones) isn’t necessarily trustworthy. God’s wisdom leads us to rely not just on our feelings, but also our minds and His Spirit for direction in such important decisions in our lives.
Summer believes there is no such thing as love. She observed the loveless marriage and subsequent divorce of her parents, and doesn’t believe that people really can care for more than their own needs and desires. Sadly, many in our society have come to believe that narcissism is the only real option for life. Summer learns from her relationship with Tom that there may be something more.
The couple enters into a sexual relationship quite early in their relationship. Our culture claims that this is no big deal, but the film shows that a sexual relationship without commitment has serious consequences. Inevitably, one person will believe such a step means more than the other. Seeing the pain this causes Tom reminds us that God did not call us to wait until marriage for sex because He is a killjoy. Sex was made for the context of safety found in a committed, exclusive relationship.
Sorry about being a little slow here. (500) Days of Summer came out in the summer but I just got to it a couple of weeks ago. But the movie has hung on in the theaters for months, having gathered a bit a cult following. It’s listed, as I write this, at #197 of the top 250 films of all time at IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base… remember though, this list is voted on chiefly by young computer geeks). Its following comes from solid performances, a smart script by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber and innovative direction from Marc Webb.
But I appreciated it most for showing what love is not. We, fortunately, can go to God and His Word to find out what it is.
(500) Days of Summer is rated PG-13 for language and sexual situations. It is scheduled for a Blu-Ray DVD release December 22.

Another Blog

2009-10-07T00:36:00.001-07:00

If you've stumbled across this for what I write about movies, you might be interested in another blog of mine: www.ruamoviegenius.blogspot.com

New Oncourse Article on Kayne West

2009-10-05T16:36:00.001-07:00

http://oncourse.ag.org/oc/features.cfm?targetBay=06d52a80-8681-49b2-871b-a4e5dc1c7708&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=12671&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3459&RSS_Source=

A Different Take On 'I Read the Book'

2009-09-28T08:25:00.001-07:00

Have you ever been talking to friends about the blockbuster hitting the screens the coming weekend or discussing a recent Netflix pick and have someone say, “Well, I read the book” or “The book was so much better.” Fair or not, I often detect a snobbish air to the phrase, as if the person really said, “You may think you know the story, but I immersed myself in the tale page after page, and you really haven’t experienced it.
Well, I don’t care if you consider me an intellectual snob, but there is a movie based on a book coming out. By the time you read this, it’s been released, but as I’m writing, it hasn’t been yet. And yes, I’ve read the book.
It’s called “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” (written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Ron Barrett). I used to read it to my kids all the time. You may have read it yourself. It’s the story of the town called Chewandswallow where the weather was quite unusual. When the sky opened in a storm, water didn’t come down in different forms, food came down in different forms.
The people of the town were never without their knives and forks because their food would come out of the skies for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The morning might start with a drizzle of orange juice and bagels followed by sandwiches with apple slices, and the evening might bring, yes, the meatballs of the title along with spaghetti noodles.
Children love the book, as do the adults who read it to them. It’s a wonderful fantasy to think of food being so accessible and plentiful. Who but the most weight- conscious among as wouldn’t like a marshmallow snowstorm?
Why doesn’t God work the world this way?
An amazing thing is, He has done things very much like this at times.
If you read Exodus 16 about the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, you’ll see that God provided food in an amazing way. When the dew dried in the morning, the people found manna, a kind of bread, on the ground. And in the evening, quail would gather for easy capture and cooking.
So why doesn’t God do this all the time? The story of the Israelites gives a clue: they soon begin to complain about their free lunch (or breakfast & dinner more properly). We often don’t appreciate what is given to us.
Before work was placed under a curse in Genesis 3, Adam was to work in the garden and care for the plants and gather his fruit.
In First Thessalonians we are told to make it our ambition to lead a quiet life and work with our hands (4:11) and respect those who work hard (5:12). Yes, the Lord’s prayer encourages us to pray for our daily bread, but that doesn’t mean we sit on our hands and wait for God to bake it.
As it turns out, even in the city of Chewandswallow, the storms of food get to be too much, and the people must build boats of stale bread to sail to a new land where people work for their food.
Yes, we begin life without working too much for our food, just sucking the milk in. And you may well have someone cooking for you now. But God always intended for the labor to be part of the joy in eating.
We partner with God to make His blessing come to earth. Working with Him shouldn’t make us less thankful, but more so.
(The movie “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” is rated PG for language that was not in the book, and it didn’t have the nutty scientist or monkey I saw in the trailer. But I’m never one to complain about adding monkeys.)

Beckett

2009-09-17T09:47:00.000-07:00

I was going to write a full review of "Becket" with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole but it just didn't flow. But I must say, it is worth seeing. If just for the scene where Burton as Becket gives away all his material goods to the poor and says it's like a holiday. He wishes he had something that he could give away that would feel like a sacrifice, but it's all joy.

In Honor of 9 opening on 9/9/9

2009-09-09T22:19:00.000-07:00

The feature film '9' opens today which is nominated on an Oscar nominated animated short subject. I reviewed it, along with the other nominated shorts that year back in 2006.

Hidden Art
By Dean Anderson
The day before the Academy Awards this year, I decided to see all the movies nominated for Best Picture in one day.
Admittedly, it probably would have been a bit more of a challenge if I’d tried to see all the films nominated for best feature film… I saw the films nominated for Best Animated Short Picture, and the challenge, was not so much. The Rialto Theater had them all playing together on one program with a bonus short.
Now let me make it clear that Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry (former Oscar winners) were nowhere to be seen. In fact, there was a warning that these films were for mature audiences only. In retrospect, I found the warning odd, since there was not any extremely offensive material. But many still think of animation as being just for kids, and the theater’s management must have wanted to avoid filling the theater with kids who would be in danger of being bored and perplexed. (Though Jasper Morello did have some violent images and The Moon and the Son has, what they call, language.)
The first short, The Fan and the Flower, was not nominated for an Oscar, but was animated by Bill Plympton, a big name in modern animation (What? You’ve never heard of him?). It tells the story of the love between a potted plant and a ceiling fan. Now that might sound bizarre, but… No, it’s bizarre. But also quite touching. And a wonderful tale of sacrifice.
The Mysterious Geographic Exploration of Jasper Morello, animated by Anthony Lucas, is an adventure story that uses Jules Verne imagery of flying ships in a world of the clouds and morphs into a horror story that rips off Alien. It went on too long, and just kind of ends, but its look is unique and rather beautiful.
I can’t fairly judge the short, Badgered, (by Sharon Colman) because I don’t think the theater had a good print. Many times it was hard to see the picture on the screen. It features a badger (no surprise) that just wants to nap, but is disturbed first by two crows and eventually a nuclear missile silo. It was cute, but no great shakes.
9 is a very strange apocalyptic tale of a burlap rag doll that battles a mutated cat skeleton. Yes, I know you’re saying I’ve seen that story a million times, but it is well done. And the rights to this work by Shane Acker have been purchased by Tim Burton (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Edward Scissorhands) to make it into a feature film.
Many of you will soon see the nominee, One Man Band, because it was created by Andrew Jimenez and Mark Andrews of Pixar, and because it will be featured this summer with the Pixar/Disney releases Cars. It was certainly had the best production values of any of the shorts -- it looked fantastic, with detailed backgrounds and winning characterization. It is the story of two competing one man bands that try to win the heart (and coin) of the one little girl that comprised their audience. It is very funny and has a nice message about pride and greed.
But I didn’t think it was the best film. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences favored the same short I did, The Moon and the Son: An Imagined Conversation by John Canemaker and Peggy Stern. If you think of animation solely in the terms of Disney fairy tales and cats chasing mice, this is far from that. Canemaker uses not only animation, but also home movies and photos to have an imagined conversation with his now dead father. The son uses the film to have a conversation with departed father that is equal parts reconciliation and revenge.
The film wrestles with the issue of the desire for parental approval, even after we come to see the faults of our parents. It is a painful story; the father was abusive and even had mob ties. But the father also had some redeeming qualities that the son learns about belatedly. It maybe a better film than any of the films nominated for best feature film.
And yet most people won’t see it. But after receiving its Oscar, more people will see The Moon and the Son: an Imagined Conversation than The Fan and the Flower -- a very nice little film. It makes me think of all the little films that didn’t make the cut for Academy Award nominees, so even fewer people will see them. Let alone pay to see them.
Which made me think of all the stories written in notebooks -- paintings in attics--songs only whistled -- that will be known only by their creators. Come to think of it, how many people get to see the wood work of Bill Bean? (Not enough, I tell you.)
But if the only reason art was created was to make money and win awards, most art would be a failed enterprise. (After all, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, and Joseph Conrad were all rejected by the Nobel Committee of Literature.)
But if art is made in the reflection of the Creator, well that’s a different matter altogether. After all, many come and applaud His Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls. But think of all the tiny wild flowers and spider webs that He is also responsible for that will never be seen be human eyes.
So if God has given you creative gifts, whether in animation or writing or cooking, practice them with joy. God will reward you, and He is always happy to hear your acceptance speech.

New Article at On Course

2009-08-25T13:19:00.000-07:00

http://oncourse.ag.org/features/index.cfm?targetBay=06d52a80-8681-49b2-871b-a4e5dc1c7708&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=12344&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3459&RSS_Source=

Good Enough for the Kids?

2009-08-15T14:20:00.001-07:00

Have you ever heard anyone say, “It’s not very good, but I think kids will like it”? It might be a book, a play, a TV show or a movie. Perhaps you’ve said it. Because, you know, the kids haven’t seen Citizen Kane, so they’ll be satisfied with Prince Puppy Pooper V. As long as there are bright colors and loud sounds, they’ll like it, right?
Kids’ entertainment is assumed to be a few rungs down on the quality scale, and it’s assumed that those who produce entertainment for kids just couldn’t cut it in the world of “grown-up” entertainment.
I loved having those assumptions challenged as I read I’m Proud of You, Tim Madigan’s memoir of his friendship with Fred Rogers. Yes, that Fred Rogers. They call him “Mister Rogers”. Of “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood”.
Fred Rogers was not looking all his life to make it the world of show business. He didn’t dream of being a movie star but settled for the world of children’s television. Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister. One day he happened to see a children’s television program with a lot of noise and commotion and pie fights. He thought, “I can do better than that. And kids deserve better than that.”
He realized that parents entrust their children to television at times, and that this did not always have to be a bad thing. So he made a television show that addressed children as people worthy of respect who had unique challenges and opportunities ahead of them.
His program (which became a staple of public television) addressed everything from bedwetting and bedtimes to death and divorce. He addressed children’s real problems in the safe and calm world that was his neighborhood.
Watching Fred Rogers, it was easy to assume he was a simple man. Which he was -- but simple in the good and not the negative sense. His was a simplicity that came from integrity and honesty and not from being slow on the uptake.
In fact, Fred Rogers was well read and well traveled. He loved to read challenging works of theology by writers such as Henri Nouwen, Frederick Buechner and Thomas Merton. He was good friends with the pianist Van Cliburn, and he met prominent world leaders.
We have a problem in our society because we see so many of the qualities that are important as signs of weakness. Many of the qualities that characterized Fred Rogers the man and his program (gentleness, tranquility, kindness and a lack of cynicism) are perceived as out of step with the “real world” of us sophisticated adults. But these are some of the very qualities that typified the life of Christ and that we are called to emulate.
In our entertainment and conversation, we too often value a knowing snarkiness that proves we aren’t vulnerable. It doesn’t take long for that cynicism to sneak into the entertainment and the lives of our kids. And our kids lose out because of this.
In the book, Madigan talks about how difficult it was to talk to Fred Rogers when he was considering divorcing his wife. How could one talk to Mister Rogers about such a thing? But Fred Rogers reached out to Madigan with compassion. And he expressed gratitude to Madigan for being willing to share his pain with him.
Madigan said that he didn’t want to sound sacrilegious, but he felt that when Fred Rogers cared for him, it was like Jesus was there. Which is, of course, how it should be when we care for others as well. Jesus took time to give children his best (Matthew 19:14).
(Though Fred Rogers is no longer with us, “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” reruns still play on public television. And for a quality movie for kids about the life of Jesus, consider the animated film, The Miracle Maker [2000].)

New article posted at On Course

2009-07-15T23:24:00.000-07:00

Giving God Your Worst:

http://oncourse.ag.org/features/index.cfm?targetBay=06d52a80-8681-49b2-871b-a4e5dc1c7708&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=12112&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3459&RSS_Source=

Why Root for the Bad Guy?

2009-07-15T23:23:00.001-07:00

In middle of the gangster epic, Public Enemies, in a scene that takes place in a movie theater, a public service announcement warns that the dangerous criminal John Dillinger is on the loose and that he could even be in this very theater! On the screen, the lights of the movie theater come up and audience members are urged to look to their left and to their right to see if they can spot the infamous robber.
The heads of the audience all swivel to the left and then to the right. All except one. John Dillinger (played by Johnny Depp) continues to stare straight at the screen. It’s a great scene (though it owes more than a little the tennis scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers On A Train), but it made me wonder what makes audiences continue, through the decades, to watch gangsters on the screen.
Back in the early sound era, gangsters were a sensation. James Cagney’s The Public Enemy and Edward G. Robinson’s Little Caesar both premiered in 1931 to public and critical acclaim but gained the ire of the censors. In fact, these films helped the Hayes rating board come about. For decades, violence would be muted.
But come the sixties, the Hayes board’s grip on the studios began to slip, and the ratings system of ‘G’, ‘M’, ‘R’ and ‘X’ rated films came into being. The letters would change, but there was a new freedom to again portray the violent world of gangsters. Audiences and even many critics were shocked by the violence of Bonnie and Clyde (1967), and The Godfather (1972) would take the crown of all time moneymaker (bypassing Gone With the Wind and itself surpassed by Star Wars).
And gangster films continue to be made. So why are hundreds of films made about this unsavory profession while many, many fewer films are made about, say, architects or librarians?
Why do people go to see films about violent lawbreakers?
There are reasons to see this particular film.
Among the more superficial reasons to see this film are the art and costume design. Those trench coats, fedoras and black sedans are just plain cool. The movie seems to get many of the details of 1930’s right (though a radio broadcast in the background of a Cubs/Yankees game is just silly; there was no inter-league play in those days).
And Christian Bale as G-Man Melvin Purvis and Johnny Depp as John Dillinger are true movie stars, fun to watch. (In the midst of the film, we see clips from the 1934 gangster flick, Manhattan Melodrama, with Clark Gable and William Powell. And it says something that Bale and Depp hold their own against these great stars of yesteryear.)
The direction is sharp, as is much of the writing. (In one scene, Purvis and Dillinger meet, and Dillinger correctly assumes that the war on crime is keeping Purvis up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger’s simple reply is, “Coffee.”)
So yes, Public Enemies is a good example of a gangster film. But why do people enjoy gangster films at all?
I’m afraid one reason is the violence. The sin nature of people leads us to desire simple solutions. Instead of dealing patiently with a rude person, wouldn’t we like simply to put the person in his place with the sight of a gun or a quick slap to the face? But Proverbs 3:31 says, “Do not envy a violent man or choose any of his ways.”
A slightly more wholesome attraction of the gangster film is it seems like an answer to powerlessness. During the Great Depression, it seemed like there was no way out of the trap of poverty that engulfed the nation. But the advent of fast cars and machine guns allowed some to take their fate into their own hands, and Pretty Boy Floyd,
Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger became heroes to many in the nation who felt victimized by the banks. Some still feel affection for a robber that steals from the banks but “lets the little guy keep his own money.”
But the crimes they committed were not, of course, victimless. The banks would pass the cost of the robberies on to customers, and many innocent people were killed during the commission of the crimes.
I think another reason people like gangster films is because, compared to these guys, we feel like we’re not so bad. But Romans 3:10 says that there is not one just. We may not feel like we are as bad as a murderer. Matthew 5:22 says if we are angry with a brother or sister, we are guilty of murder.
Maybe a good thing about these films is the reminder that the consequences of sin are deadly and sure. And we do need to control our desires or they will lead to our destruction.
So, yeah, I like gangster films. But I try to root for the side of the law rather than the side of lawlessness. So here are five other gangster films I’ve enjoyed (and you can blame my sinful nature):
1) Scarface (1932) - . Paul Muni plays TonCamonte (fifty one years later Al Pacino would play Tony Montana in a film with the same name) in this Howard Hawks directed film. This film does not make the life of crime attractive; Muni plays the role as an apeman. Look for Frankenstein’s Boris Karloff as a rival gangster. (Made before the ratings system)
2) The Roaring Twenties (1939) – Cagney and Bogart. You can’t ask for more than that. (No rating)
3) White Heat (1949) – James Cagney again, playing a madman. Perhaps a lot closer to what the bank robbers of the 30’s were really like than Depp’s smooth and charming Dillinger. (No rating.)
4) The Godfather (1972) – Critics have consistently called this one of the top films of all time. Marlon Brando won the Oscar, but the film is full of great performances by Robert Duvall, James Caan, Al Pacino, Diane Keaton…well, just about everyone, including the horse. (Rated R for violence, nudity, language)
5) Miller’s Crossing (1990) – Joel and Ethan Coen delivered another of their many great films. Albert Finney and Gabriel Byrne give great performances. At the heart of this film is the question, do loyalty and faithfulness matter in a corrupt world? (Rated R for violence and language)
Public Enemies is rated R for violence, language and sensuality.

For Crying "Up" Loud

2009-06-21T14:47:00.001-07:00

Let’s get this out of the way quickly. Disney/Pixar’s “Up” is the best reviewed film so far in 2009 for good reason: it is the best film that has come out this year. An animated film, it truly is “fun for the whole family”. (Often when you see “fftwf”, it means the parents are to get some fun out of watching their kids laugh at pratfalls and poop jokes. It this film, there are characters that people of every age [except maybe preschoolers] can relate to and find appealing and humor for sophisticated and innocent tastes.)
So, we’ve established this much: “Up” is a worthy film, and if you go to the theater to see movies, then you should go to this one. If you watch films on DVD, you should put this on the list of films to rent or buy. And if you don’t like it, don’t blame me, blame 98% of the critics at RottenTomatoes.com.
I just want to write something about people watching the film. Shortly after the film came out, I talked to a high school girl about her viewing experience (I’d rather not use your name, Hannah Wycoff, because I wouldn’t want to embarrass you). She noticed a man in her row in the theater began sobbing during a portion of the film. She was baffled because she thought the film was funny throughout. Why was this guy crying?
All right, I’ll admit it. I got misty eyed watching this film. The story of Carl Fredricksen, a 78 year old widower, has a dominant theme of loss: loss of possessions, loved ones and dreams. And it got to me. So here is a question: why do people watch the same film and some cry, while others just laugh or stare like robot automatons?
Obviously, we approach a film with different life experiences. If you come to the film “Up” with loss in your life experience, it may touch you in a different way than those who haven’t experienced loss. Or perhaps the difference in reactions can be accounted for in peoples varied imaginations or emotional make-up or levels of empathy.
Some of it is just a mystery. Art has a way of creeping around our emotional defenses. A simple painting of the sea side can touch some unexpressed inner longing of the heart. A symphonic movement can make us laugh with joy just as a piece of chamber music can make us suddenly somber, and we may have a very difficult time explaining either reaction. The human heart, mind and spirit are complex entities, and we often can’t account for our own responses.
I find these same mysteries come to play in worship. Our reactions to the hymns, choruses, sermons, testimonies and readings can be unpredictable. The same service that bores one person changes the life of another person. That’s all right. Every congregation is an eclectic group of saints and sinners and combinations of the two. So God will work in every person in very different ways (if we allow him to work).
Romans 8:26 tells us that the Spirit of God works in ways that we cannot understand, crying out to God on our behalf for our great and real needs that we sometimes don’t even realize we have. It’s good to know that though we don’t always understand why we cry or why we laugh, why we feel elation or despair, God does. He not only understands our very real needs, He is ready to meet them.
(Addendum: 5 Films That Make Me Cry
I’m secure enough in my masculinity to admit that I get a little weepy watching certain movies. For a great scene about cinematic weeping, watch “Sleepless in Seattle” in which the women talk about crying during “An Affair to Remember” and the guys respond by talking about tears during “The Dirty Dozen”. This is a chick flick, of course, so women can watch the whole film and men can use chapter selection to get to this one great scene. For some reason, I am more likely to get teary at joyful moments than sorrowful ones. Anyway, here’s my top five:
1) “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) The end is what gets me, when we find that George Bailey is the richest man in town.
2) “Henry V” (1989) When Henry gives the speech before the Battle of Agincourt (“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers”). That guy Shakespeare wasn’t too shabby a writer. [Rated PG-13 for violence]
3) “Field of Dreams” (1989) Sure, it’s about baseball. But it’s really about bringing together fathers and sons. But I repeat myself.
4) “The Passion of the Christ” (2004) Or just about any film that recreates the crucifixion of Jesus. [Rated R for violence]
5) “Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey” (1993) Okay, this one is kind of embarrassing. But I used to watch the video of this a lot with my kids, and every time I see Shadow, the old dog thought dead, come over that hill, and the music swells, I just… well…um…sniff…I think we’re done here)

Pixar Rankings

2009-05-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

With Pixar’s 10th feature film opening tomorrow (Up) I thought I’d rank the nine others. The nice thing about making such a list, is all the films are favorites. Pixar has yet to make a bad film. They average great, but the range is good to masterpiece.

9) Cars – This is the worst Pixar feature film IMHO. Which is like saying this is the list crisp $100 bill in the stack. I love the voice of Paul Newman in the film and Click and Clack. The end segment is awesome with the critique of the film from Pixar’s good luck charm, Cliff from Cheers.
But the story of a race car that learns to be humble is at times a bit sappy and the film drags (not in the speedy drag race way) for me.

8) Ratatouille – Yeah, it may be one of the five best films made the year it came out, but that isn’t good enough for top ranking on this list. I love the message of exceptionalism in the film, but I think Brad Bird works the theme even better on another film on this list. Very well developed action sequences, but it doesn’t have the emotional punch some of the other films have.

7) Monster’s Inc – I love monster movies. And this is one of the great one. Sure, the monsters prove to be lovable old fuzzballs, but wasn’t King Kong as well? And Frankenstein’s Monster? And the Wolfman? And Hanibal Lector? (Um…Scratch the last one.)
John Goodman and Billy Crystal do great voice work in this film, but they may be out acted by the Pixar kid who voices Boo.

6) A Bug’s Life – Many people consider this the least of the Pixar films, but I’m a sucker for the team recruited for a mission films (Seven Samurai, Magnificent Seven ) and the variation on the theme of incompetents on a mission (Three Amigos, Galaxy Quest) which this film is. Plus, Dave from News Radio has had very few opportunities to star in major motion pictures.

5) Toy Story – The first Pixar feature is a masterpiece. The rest of the films on this list are masterpieces. Who but Hitchcock, Kurosawa and a few others do the kind of work these Pixar folks have achieved? Of course, here they had the help of Joss Whedon, the great creator of Buffy and Firefly.
Anyway, this film touches on themes of identity and loss in ways that are funny and emotionally devastating at the same time. Some of the best work Tom Hanks has done (which is really saying something) and some of the best work Tim Allen has done (which is saying a lot less, Galaxy Quest excepted.)
Don Rickles in this rules.

4) Finding Nemo – Albert Brooks has done a couple of my favorite comedies (Lost in America & Modern Romance) but this is what he’ll be remembered for decades from now. Same with Ellen Degenerous who is hilarious and heartbreaking as Dori.
But as a dad, the best part is the way the film plays on the themes of protecting and releasing a child.

3) Toy Story II – Okay, we’re talking the rarest of the rare here. A sequel better than the original. We have this and Empire Strikes Back and um… No, the second Godfather is not better than the first. You’re just wrong about this. As funny as the original and even more poignant. Plus it adds a Republican with Kelsey Grammer as the Stinky Prospector. (Along with the ever present John Ratzenberger – the other conservative Cheers vet.)

2) Wall-E – My son thinks this is the best film, but he’s wrong. The first half hour, though is hard to beat. Up with the best slapstick of Keaton and Chaplin. Love the message against the Nanny State, but it’s the robot romance that really touches the heart.

1) The Incredibles – It just is the best. We’ll see how Up compares. But, come on, the best James Bond film in forever and it’s family friendly? How did they do that? The Spirit of the best comic ever, The Fantastic Four, as well? A great score, vocal work, art design, everything. So much better than that animated Mr. Incredible show that played on TV in the 60’s.

Boldly Going Where Bill Shatner Went Before

2009-05-16T21:41:00.001-07:00

One out of every three children ages 6 to 11 is afraid the Earth won’t exist when he or she grows up. If I was to guess a single reason why “Star Trek”, the movie recreation of the forty year old TV show, is so popular, I’d guess it was because of the film’s optimism.
Chris Pine stars as the young, yet to be Captain, James Tiberius Kirk growing up hundreds of years from now in the state of Iowa where there the skies are still blue and the fields are still green. San Francisco has not been flooded by the rising oceans of global warming. Nations haven’t destroyed each other with nuclear weapons, but instead, in the world of Star Trek, not only are nations and ethnic groups no longer at war, but there is also peace with a variety of planets, races and civilizations.
There are many things to appreciate in the world of the new Star Trek. Exciting action sequences, some very funny lines and the warm relationship that develop between the characters (that are like family to many viewers): Dr. “Bones” McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekhov, Sulu and especially the half human/half alien, Spock.
Many people relate to the personal struggles of Spock. His Vulcan race insist that all decisions and actions should be made using reason and logic alone. In the film, we see the beginnings of his friendship with Jim Kirk, someone who bases his decisions often on feelings and instinct. Learning to balance the mind as portrayed through Spock and the heart as portrayed through Kirk is a constant struggle in all of our lives.
That balance reason and emotion is called wisdom. The book of Proverbs is all about the pursuit of wisdom in life. Proverbs 2: 1 & 2 says, “Store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding.” We need the balance between the teaching of Scripture for our minds and the prompting of God’s spirit in our hearts.
But back to that optimism in the world of Star Trek. So many science fiction films show a world without hope. In the world of the Terminator films and TV show atomic war destroys millions of lives and war is ongoing. In the world of “The Day After Tomorrow” and this summer’s “2012” ecological disaster looms to destroy us all. Let alone that coming zombie invasion.
In the world of Star Trek there is hope. There will be peace (well, except for those pesky Romulans). There will be prosperity; everyone’s needs will be met and everyone will have a job to do. And people get to fly in cool space ships. People love the thought of such a world.
But that’s just science fiction. The problems this world faces are real. Jesus said those troubles would come. Mark 13: 7 & 8 says “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes and famines.” And He said that was just the beginning.
Scripture tells us this world will eventually come to an end. Hebrews 12:26 we have God promises as much, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also heavens.”
There will be a world of peace, hope and incredible riches. Revelation chapters 21 and 22 describe God’s new heaven and new earth. It will be greater than the optimistic world Gene Rodenberry imagined with the old Star Trek and even J. J. Abrams’ new Star Trek.

(The film is rated PG-13 and does include scenes of sensuality, violence and language.)

Hitchcock Films I Haven't Seen

2009-04-27T19:20:00.000-07:00

Some of these first films might not even exist anymore:

Silent

NUMBER 13 (1922)
ALWAYS TELL YOUR WIFE (1923)
THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925)
THE MOUNTAIN EAGLE (1926)
THE RING (1927)
DOWNHILL (1927)
THE FARMER'S DAUGHTER (1928)
EASY VIRTUE (1928)
CHAMPAGNE (1928)
SOUNDTEST FOR BLACKMAIL (1929)
THE MANXMAN (1929)

Sound

ELSTREE CALLING (1930)
JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK (1930)
MURDER! (1930)
MARY (1931)
WALTZES OF VIENNA (1934)

War films

BON VOYAGE (1944)
AVENTURE MALGACHE (1944)
THE FIGHTING GENERATION (1944)
WATCHTOWER OVER TOMORROW (1945)

and finally

UNDER CAPRICORN (1949) with Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten, the film I need to see most on this list.

So 41 films and 21 films I haven't seen.