Often when people explain why they don’t like musicals they say, “I just can’t believe people would just be talking one minute and then break out into song the next.” These same people might not be bothered by loud explosions in space in a science fiction film or a man shooting a six shooter accurately a couple of hundred yards away in a western or a miracle amphibious vehicle that allows its passengers to survive not one but three falls over large waterfalls. But spontaneous song is going just too far.
Maybe it’s because we live in a society that spends much money for concerts and downloads to enjoy the music of others while fewer people are making music of their own.
That’s not a problem for the members of Young@Heart, a chorus depicted in the documentary movie of the same name. In 1982 this chorus group, whose members are all 70 years old or older, was founded. Initially they performed vaudeville songs like “Yes, We Have No Bananas,” but their director, Bob Cilman, pushed the chorus to try something different: rock and roll.
Many of the chorus members had a preference for classical music, opera or the musicals of Rodgers and Hammerstein. But they were willing to take on the challenge of music by the Talking Heads, David Bowie and the Clash (or as the 92 year old member Ellie refers to them, “The Crash”.)
The new songs are not always greeted with good cheer. When Cilman is asked how he thinks the members will react to Sonic Youth’s “Schizophrenia” he cheerfully says “They’ll hate it.” But when interviewed, the members insist that the challenge of new music keeps their minds and voices active and alive.
At times, though, I wondered how really new some to the music was to the members. The film was made in 2006. “I Feel Good” is introduced to the singers, and I was thinking that James Brown released that song in 1965. That means that chorus members in their 70’s were in their thirties when the song was released. When Mick Jagger is going to turn 65 this year and Paul McCartney just turned the same age, and Elvis would have been eligible to be in Young@Heart if he had lived, it makes one wonder if rock and roll can still be considered a young person’s game.
And at times during the film I wondered if the filmmaker (Stephen Walker) and the audiences don’t approach the chorus in a condescending manner (“Isn’t it cute those old people singing rock songs!”) But the group’s music is genuinely powerful. The music video of the group singing the Ramone’s “Sedated” is energetic and funny. Coldplay’s “Fixed” which was meant to be performed as a duet but becomes a solo is heartbreaking.
The members of Young@Heart have a unique understanding of the command in the Psalm 96:1 “Sing to the Lord a new song.” So many of us are content to listen to the oldies stations on the radio that play the music of our youth. In church, we want to sing only the songs we know. But that’s not what God wants for us. He wants us to sing a new song not just to keep our minds fresh but also our spirits.
Considering the age of the group members, it should not be a surprise that in the film we see the group struggle with greater challenges than tricky rhythms and lyrics. Illness and even death plays a role in this film as it does in the members’ lives. Their grace in facing life’s ultimate challenges will inspire the view even more than the film’s music.
Young@Heart is in theaters as I write this, but that might not be the case where you are so you may have to wait for the DVD of this PG rated film. You might want to put one or more of the following musicals on your library or Netflix list as you wait for it to be released:
Singing in the Rain (1952) Often called the greatest musical of Hollywood, it also is a very funny satire of Hollywood’s transition to talkies. Gene Kelly’s swing around the lamp post is one of the most joyous moments in cinema.
Swing Time (1936) All the films that Ginger Rodgers and Fred Astaire made together are worth watching, but the direction of George Stevens (director of Shane and Gunga Din) and the music of Jerome Kern (“The Way You Look Tonight”) make this my favorite.
A Hard Day’s Night (1964) The Beatles debut on the big screen was just plain fun. This is where MTV videos were born, but don’t hold that against it.
Fiddler on the Roof (1971) The story of a small Jewish village in Russia in the years prior to the Bolshevik revolution has wonderful music, dancing and humor. But I most cherish Topol’s marvelous depiction of Tevye’s relationship with God.
Once (2007) All the other recommendations are rated G. The winner of last year’s Best Song Oscar is rated R for adult language. The opening scene drops F-bombs with abandon and this continues throughout the film. But if you can make it past that, this is a very sweet film about a romance between musicians that is just not meant to be.
The great thing about musicals on DVD is that you can push the closed caption button and along. God does want you to sing. It’s never too early to start practicing for those heavenly choirs.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Iron Man or Spirit Man
Writing about Iron Man almost a month after its debut does pose some challenges. The first four points I’ve written here contain information that you probably know if you have read anything about this film (and you certainly know if you’ve seen the film). So if you want, you can skip past these first four points and go straight to some points that are a little more unique.
The film is based on a Marvel comic and has been compared favorably with other comic book films; even the other comic ‘Man’ films (‘Super’, ‘Bat’ and ‘Spider’.) But an interesting difference between the hero in this film and the heroes of ‘Superman’, ‘Batman’ and ‘Spiderman’ is that those heroes make great effort to avoid deadly force. Batman has a policy against using guns. Superman uses his great powers to jail rather than kill villains almost without fail. Spiderman’s villains in the films die because of their own hubris rather than at Spidey’s hand (or web or whatever). Iron Man has guns and missiles built into his suit that are intended to kill people, and he does that very thing. Keep that in mind if you’re thinking of taking the young’uns. (If you want to know how I think it compares to the other superhero ‘Man’ films, I’ve ranked them below.)
The cast is great. Gwyneth Paltrow takes the role of Pepper Potts, the loyal assistant that could have been a cliché and an offense to feminists, and makes the character into a charming blend of strength and vulnerability. Jeff Bridges ably projects ironic menace as Obadiah Stane. Terrance Howard is okay, but not nearly as interesting as he has been in other films. But it’s all about the guy who plays Tony Stark, the man who becomes Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr. is excellent in the film. He is the single best reason to buy a ticket. It’s fun to see a forty-something year old not so chiseled hero (the power is in the suit). Downey plays the billionaire playboy munitions manufacturer as someone whose top concern is amusing himself. Downey has given similar top drawer performances in such films as last year’s Zodiac or A Scanner Darkly from the year before that. But very few people saw those films. (Super hero films tend to be more popular than docudramas about serial killers or animated dystrophic science fiction.) In real life, Downey has struggled with abuse problems, and it’s a pleasure to see him in such an entertaining breakout role.
This movie is making a lot of money. It made one hundred million dollars in its opening weekend alone. There has been a drought of exciting popcorn films in theaters, and many are rushing to see a film they hear is just plain fun.
You might want to stay past the final credits to get a hint of sequels to come.
As I said, all this has been written about before. So what can I add for the church newsletter? How about a ridiculous comparison to Scripture? Why not? If you can’t write silly about a super hero film, what can you write silly about?
The first suit worn by Tony Stark in the film is built by the character in a cave in Afghanistan. He is being held hostage by terrorists who want him to build a missile system. He uses the materials system to build a mechanical suit that allows him to escape. When he returns home, he builds a bigger and better suit.
So let’s take a look at how the armor of Iron Man compares to the armor of God described in Ephesians chapter 6.
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
Right off the bat, we get a big contrast between the two suits. Iron Man’s armor is used to protect against flesh and blood. Though for PC reasons the film does not label the terrorists in the film as Muslim, they are quite obviously modeled after the Taliban. Tony Stark has no compunction about killing with bullets those who would kill him or innocent bystanders.
Paul makes it clear in this passage that our real enemies are not other people. Those people that seem to be our enemies have been deceived by the powers of darkness, and we must do our best to show love to people who strike out against us. (Note I am not saying here there is not a role for police officers and soldiers to use force to protect the innocent.) But we need to pray for and love those who ridicule Jesus Christ and His teaching, and not treat them as enemies.
Paul makes it clear that there are real evil spiritual forces in the world, Satan and his minions along with destructive philosophies and teaching. That is where the battle lies for a Christian.
14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
In the film, Stark runs a munitions company. When captured by terrorists he sees that they are using his company’s weapons for nefarious ends. He then pursues the truth about how they obtained his weapons, knowing the exposure of the truth may have a great financial cost. As Christians, we need to pursue the truth, even if it is costly.
As the film begins, Tony Stark is definitely not a righteous man. We see he is a gambler, a heavy drinker and sexually promiscuous. But when a character in the film sacrifices his life for Stark, we see Stark realize that he should not live his life so selfishly. Because someone gave His life for us, we need to pursue righteousness.
15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
Stark’s feet are equipped with rocket packs. But I’d argue that God’s Spirit can get us where we need to go to share His good news faster and farther.
16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Stark’s whole suit is a shield. His basic power is invulnerability. We have the armor of God, which will not necessarily protect us from illness or pain or poverty. But if we trust Him, it will protect us from the flaming arrows of the evil one that would have eternal, damning consequences.
17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Stark uses all kinds of offensive weaponry. He has all kinds of guns and missiles and his very armor acts as a weapon. But the sword is the only offensive weapon in God’s arsenal. We need to get to know the Bible, the Word of God, well. It’s the only weapon of God we have. And all we need.
18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Iron Man pretty much fights alone. We, like a real army, need the support of others. We need the prayers of our fellow believers. And we need to pray for them.
The kid in me watches Iron Man and thinks, “I wish I had a suit like that.” But the Spirit in me says, “You have something better.”
(Iron Man is rated PG-13 for violence, sensuality and language.)
[For the geeks: my rating of how Iron Man compares to the Superman, Batman and Spiderman films.
On par with Superman, not at good as Superman II, but far better than the horrible Superman III and Superman IV and the mediocre Superman Returns.
Better than Batman (1966), Batman (1989) and far better than the wretched Batman Returns, Batman Forever and worst of all Batman and Robin. Its not as good as Batman Begins and the jury’s still out on The Dark Knight with Christian Bale and Heath Ledger, which will be released July 18th.
On par with Spiderman, not as good as Spiderman II and far better than Spiderman III.]
The film is based on a Marvel comic and has been compared favorably with other comic book films; even the other comic ‘Man’ films (‘Super’, ‘Bat’ and ‘Spider’.) But an interesting difference between the hero in this film and the heroes of ‘Superman’, ‘Batman’ and ‘Spiderman’ is that those heroes make great effort to avoid deadly force. Batman has a policy against using guns. Superman uses his great powers to jail rather than kill villains almost without fail. Spiderman’s villains in the films die because of their own hubris rather than at Spidey’s hand (or web or whatever). Iron Man has guns and missiles built into his suit that are intended to kill people, and he does that very thing. Keep that in mind if you’re thinking of taking the young’uns. (If you want to know how I think it compares to the other superhero ‘Man’ films, I’ve ranked them below.)
The cast is great. Gwyneth Paltrow takes the role of Pepper Potts, the loyal assistant that could have been a cliché and an offense to feminists, and makes the character into a charming blend of strength and vulnerability. Jeff Bridges ably projects ironic menace as Obadiah Stane. Terrance Howard is okay, but not nearly as interesting as he has been in other films. But it’s all about the guy who plays Tony Stark, the man who becomes Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr. is excellent in the film. He is the single best reason to buy a ticket. It’s fun to see a forty-something year old not so chiseled hero (the power is in the suit). Downey plays the billionaire playboy munitions manufacturer as someone whose top concern is amusing himself. Downey has given similar top drawer performances in such films as last year’s Zodiac or A Scanner Darkly from the year before that. But very few people saw those films. (Super hero films tend to be more popular than docudramas about serial killers or animated dystrophic science fiction.) In real life, Downey has struggled with abuse problems, and it’s a pleasure to see him in such an entertaining breakout role.
This movie is making a lot of money. It made one hundred million dollars in its opening weekend alone. There has been a drought of exciting popcorn films in theaters, and many are rushing to see a film they hear is just plain fun.
You might want to stay past the final credits to get a hint of sequels to come.
As I said, all this has been written about before. So what can I add for the church newsletter? How about a ridiculous comparison to Scripture? Why not? If you can’t write silly about a super hero film, what can you write silly about?
The first suit worn by Tony Stark in the film is built by the character in a cave in Afghanistan. He is being held hostage by terrorists who want him to build a missile system. He uses the materials system to build a mechanical suit that allows him to escape. When he returns home, he builds a bigger and better suit.
So let’s take a look at how the armor of Iron Man compares to the armor of God described in Ephesians chapter 6.
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
Right off the bat, we get a big contrast between the two suits. Iron Man’s armor is used to protect against flesh and blood. Though for PC reasons the film does not label the terrorists in the film as Muslim, they are quite obviously modeled after the Taliban. Tony Stark has no compunction about killing with bullets those who would kill him or innocent bystanders.
Paul makes it clear in this passage that our real enemies are not other people. Those people that seem to be our enemies have been deceived by the powers of darkness, and we must do our best to show love to people who strike out against us. (Note I am not saying here there is not a role for police officers and soldiers to use force to protect the innocent.) But we need to pray for and love those who ridicule Jesus Christ and His teaching, and not treat them as enemies.
Paul makes it clear that there are real evil spiritual forces in the world, Satan and his minions along with destructive philosophies and teaching. That is where the battle lies for a Christian.
14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
In the film, Stark runs a munitions company. When captured by terrorists he sees that they are using his company’s weapons for nefarious ends. He then pursues the truth about how they obtained his weapons, knowing the exposure of the truth may have a great financial cost. As Christians, we need to pursue the truth, even if it is costly.
As the film begins, Tony Stark is definitely not a righteous man. We see he is a gambler, a heavy drinker and sexually promiscuous. But when a character in the film sacrifices his life for Stark, we see Stark realize that he should not live his life so selfishly. Because someone gave His life for us, we need to pursue righteousness.
15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
Stark’s feet are equipped with rocket packs. But I’d argue that God’s Spirit can get us where we need to go to share His good news faster and farther.
16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Stark’s whole suit is a shield. His basic power is invulnerability. We have the armor of God, which will not necessarily protect us from illness or pain or poverty. But if we trust Him, it will protect us from the flaming arrows of the evil one that would have eternal, damning consequences.
17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Stark uses all kinds of offensive weaponry. He has all kinds of guns and missiles and his very armor acts as a weapon. But the sword is the only offensive weapon in God’s arsenal. We need to get to know the Bible, the Word of God, well. It’s the only weapon of God we have. And all we need.
18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Iron Man pretty much fights alone. We, like a real army, need the support of others. We need the prayers of our fellow believers. And we need to pray for them.
The kid in me watches Iron Man and thinks, “I wish I had a suit like that.” But the Spirit in me says, “You have something better.”
(Iron Man is rated PG-13 for violence, sensuality and language.)
[For the geeks: my rating of how Iron Man compares to the Superman, Batman and Spiderman films.
On par with Superman, not at good as Superman II, but far better than the horrible Superman III and Superman IV and the mediocre Superman Returns.
Better than Batman (1966), Batman (1989) and far better than the wretched Batman Returns, Batman Forever and worst of all Batman and Robin. Its not as good as Batman Begins and the jury’s still out on The Dark Knight with Christian Bale and Heath Ledger, which will be released July 18th.
On par with Spiderman, not as good as Spiderman II and far better than Spiderman III.]
Monday, April 28, 2008
Best Basketball Documentary Since Hoop Dreams
THE HEART OF THE GAME How is it that even sports documentaries seem to end with the great film cliché, “The Big Game”? You know how it works: you start with the scrappy underdogs that don’t have a chance. Then that key player or coach comes in and turns every thing around and suddenly there is a chance to be champions. But it all hinges on that last big event when the whole world seems to be watching.
Maybe it’s because that last pass, shoot or race can still put a lump in the throat and tear in the eye of even the most hardened of sports fans and movie goers. The Heart of the Game, a documentary about a girl’s high school basketball team, the Roosevelt Rough Riders of Seattle, Washington, follows a new coach as he builds the team over seven years.
Ward Serrill, the film maker, could not have known he would end up with the aforementioned cliché when he began the project, but he must have been thrilled when it came about. Bill Resler, the college economics professor who became the team’s coach, dreamed about the cliché of the big game and had to live through turmoil until “the big game” came about. And that turmoil, particularly the trials of two star players, Devon and Darnella, provides much of the drama for the viewer.
The film is out on DVD and I highly recommend it for the sporting thrills, social commentary and unexpected humor (archive footage of early twentieth century woman’s basketball. And you thought the guys used to have funky uniforms).
There are ways the church is like a team, but I was struck by the differences. To be on the team, you had to go through try-outs to prove you were worthy. Christ welcomes every one into the church, precisely because we are not worthy (He is).
On a team the star player often is given preferential treatment if that person can make the difference between winning or losing. In the book of James, preferential treatment in the Church is expressly forbidden.
On a team, by its nature, the players have many superficial similarities. The players are the same age, gender, usually from the same geographic location (an exception to this rule provides much of the film’s interest) and similar talents. The church the Apostle Paul describes has people of every demographic.
When you think about it, the church is quite a unique institution. And there is no way it could stick together if we didn’t have the Coach we have. (The Heart of the Game is rated PG-13 for strong language and was released this year.)
And since we’re talking about sports films, let me give you some recommendations, in no particular order, my Top Ten Sport Films:
Chariots of Fire (1981) is a great sports film, Best Picture winner, and one of a handful of mainstream Hollywood films with an evangelical Christian as its protagonist. Eric Liddell, “The Flying Scotsman”, a sprinter who made a stand for Christ in the 1924 Olympic Games and captured the imagination of the world. The film doesn’t move as quickly as Liddell, but moving it is. (rated PG for reasons hard to discern)
Field of Dreams (1989) is a film about baseball, nostalgia, and becomes (rather surprisingly) about the prickly but vital relationship between fathers and sons. Kevin Costner is at his best, and there’s the treat of seeing Burt Lancaster in one of his last roles. Never mind that it inaccurately shows lefty Shoeless Joe Jackson as right-handed, it gets everything else right. (rated PG for language)
Rocky (1976) is a great film because of its ending. Sly Stallone wrote his own first starring role, wisely celebrating the boxer’s limitations as much as his hidden virtues. Like Field of Dreams, it celebrates the courage of “going the distance”. (rated PG for strong language and a lot of pugilistic violence)
Hoosiers (1986), The best formulation of the cliche of building the team up for the big game. (rated PG for language)
Bang the Drum Slowly (1973) is one of Robert de Niro’sfirst great starring roles as a big league catcher who isn’t too bright. Michael Moriarty plays the friend that looks out for him. The film makes one consider what it takes to be his brother’s keeper. (PG for a lot of strong language)
It Happens Every Spring (1949) beats out Major League, Tin Cup and even Caddyshack as my favorite sports comedy. The other three are very funny, but their crass humor earns their R ratings. Spring takes a more whimsical approach, as a professor (Ray Milland)invents a chemical that repels wood and figures out a sporting application for his product.
North Dallas Forty (1979) is not at all a family film. I got into hot water when I recommended this film to an InterVarsity friend of mine when the film was first in theaters. But I love this film, if just for the opening scene of Nick Nolte as NFL veteran feeling every bruise and break from years on the field as he gets out of bed in the morning. It also asks some good questions about the price put on integrity and one’s very soul in the world of professional sports (and the world in general). (rated R for sexual situations, violence, language, alcohol and drug abuse)
Cinderella Man (2005) and The Rookie (2002) I likebecause I’m getting older, and it’s nice to see other older guys succeeding in the arena (Russell Crowe as Jim Braddock in boxing and Dennis Quaid as Jim Morris in baseball). But the stories are true, and the men’s Christian faith is a part of both stories. (CinderellaMan is rated PG-13 for language and violence, The Rookie is rated G)
I doubt The Heart of the Game would have been made if it were not for Hoop Dreams (1994), a three-hour documentary that follows two young African Americans who go from boys to men, following their dream of basketball saving them from the ghetto. A great sports film, but even more, a film about the narrow vision of opportunity offered to those in poverty. (rated PG-13 for language)
Maybe it’s because that last pass, shoot or race can still put a lump in the throat and tear in the eye of even the most hardened of sports fans and movie goers. The Heart of the Game, a documentary about a girl’s high school basketball team, the Roosevelt Rough Riders of Seattle, Washington, follows a new coach as he builds the team over seven years.
Ward Serrill, the film maker, could not have known he would end up with the aforementioned cliché when he began the project, but he must have been thrilled when it came about. Bill Resler, the college economics professor who became the team’s coach, dreamed about the cliché of the big game and had to live through turmoil until “the big game” came about. And that turmoil, particularly the trials of two star players, Devon and Darnella, provides much of the drama for the viewer.
The film is out on DVD and I highly recommend it for the sporting thrills, social commentary and unexpected humor (archive footage of early twentieth century woman’s basketball. And you thought the guys used to have funky uniforms).
There are ways the church is like a team, but I was struck by the differences. To be on the team, you had to go through try-outs to prove you were worthy. Christ welcomes every one into the church, precisely because we are not worthy (He is).
On a team the star player often is given preferential treatment if that person can make the difference between winning or losing. In the book of James, preferential treatment in the Church is expressly forbidden.
On a team, by its nature, the players have many superficial similarities. The players are the same age, gender, usually from the same geographic location (an exception to this rule provides much of the film’s interest) and similar talents. The church the Apostle Paul describes has people of every demographic.
When you think about it, the church is quite a unique institution. And there is no way it could stick together if we didn’t have the Coach we have. (The Heart of the Game is rated PG-13 for strong language and was released this year.)
And since we’re talking about sports films, let me give you some recommendations, in no particular order, my Top Ten Sport Films:
Chariots of Fire (1981) is a great sports film, Best Picture winner, and one of a handful of mainstream Hollywood films with an evangelical Christian as its protagonist. Eric Liddell, “The Flying Scotsman”, a sprinter who made a stand for Christ in the 1924 Olympic Games and captured the imagination of the world. The film doesn’t move as quickly as Liddell, but moving it is. (rated PG for reasons hard to discern)
Field of Dreams (1989) is a film about baseball, nostalgia, and becomes (rather surprisingly) about the prickly but vital relationship between fathers and sons. Kevin Costner is at his best, and there’s the treat of seeing Burt Lancaster in one of his last roles. Never mind that it inaccurately shows lefty Shoeless Joe Jackson as right-handed, it gets everything else right. (rated PG for language)
Rocky (1976) is a great film because of its ending. Sly Stallone wrote his own first starring role, wisely celebrating the boxer’s limitations as much as his hidden virtues. Like Field of Dreams, it celebrates the courage of “going the distance”. (rated PG for strong language and a lot of pugilistic violence)
Hoosiers (1986), The best formulation of the cliche of building the team up for the big game. (rated PG for language)
Bang the Drum Slowly (1973) is one of Robert de Niro’sfirst great starring roles as a big league catcher who isn’t too bright. Michael Moriarty plays the friend that looks out for him. The film makes one consider what it takes to be his brother’s keeper. (PG for a lot of strong language)
It Happens Every Spring (1949) beats out Major League, Tin Cup and even Caddyshack as my favorite sports comedy. The other three are very funny, but their crass humor earns their R ratings. Spring takes a more whimsical approach, as a professor (Ray Milland)invents a chemical that repels wood and figures out a sporting application for his product.
North Dallas Forty (1979) is not at all a family film. I got into hot water when I recommended this film to an InterVarsity friend of mine when the film was first in theaters. But I love this film, if just for the opening scene of Nick Nolte as NFL veteran feeling every bruise and break from years on the field as he gets out of bed in the morning. It also asks some good questions about the price put on integrity and one’s very soul in the world of professional sports (and the world in general). (rated R for sexual situations, violence, language, alcohol and drug abuse)
Cinderella Man (2005) and The Rookie (2002) I likebecause I’m getting older, and it’s nice to see other older guys succeeding in the arena (Russell Crowe as Jim Braddock in boxing and Dennis Quaid as Jim Morris in baseball). But the stories are true, and the men’s Christian faith is a part of both stories. (CinderellaMan is rated PG-13 for language and violence, The Rookie is rated G)
I doubt The Heart of the Game would have been made if it were not for Hoop Dreams (1994), a three-hour documentary that follows two young African Americans who go from boys to men, following their dream of basketball saving them from the ghetto. A great sports film, but even more, a film about the narrow vision of opportunity offered to those in poverty. (rated PG-13 for language)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Thoughts on "Sullivan's Travels"
Some cheery thoughts for your day:
According to the website of Bread for the Hungry, more than 854 million people in the world go hungry. In developing countries nearly 16 million children die every year from preventable and treatable causes. Sixty percent of these deaths are from hunger and malnutrition.
According to World Vision’s website, more than a billion children subsist on less than a dollar a day. Also according to World Vision, fifteen million children around the world have lost one or both parents to AIDS and 6,000 more are added each day.
According to Christians in Crisis International, in the last 2,000 years, 43,000,000 Christians have been martyred for their faith; over half of those were in the last century. Over two hundred million Christians face persecution today, and on average 300 Christian believers die each day for their faith.
I sometimes think about statistics like these when I go through my day-to-day activities. When I’m trying to decide whether to buy Mission Brand or Doritos Brand corn chips at the grocery store. Or when I’m on the phone with a potential customer at the hotel and helping to decide whether to get a standard room or spend a few hundred dollars more for a suite. Or when I’m writing a movie column.
So many of the things we do in our life seem so inconsequential when compared with the trials and struggles so many people face in the world. Sometimes it seems that all of our pursuits, vocationally, personally and even spiritually are trivial if one considers them in the light of the “big picture”.
Well, there is a “little picture” that can help put this existential dilemma into perspective. The picture, titled Sullivan’s Travels (1941) is considered by many to be the masterpiece of writer and director Preston Sturges, even compared some of his other wonderful films such as The Lady Eve and The Palm Beach Story.
In the film, Sullivan (Joel McCrea) is a movie director known for his zany comedies (such as Hey, Hey in the Hayloft and Ants in Your Pants of 1938), but when he considers the continuing economic straits in the country and the war in Europe he wonders if he shouldn’t be doing something more serious. He decides to make a film that explores the human condition, O Brother, Where Art Thou? But Sullivan’s staff questions whether he can really understand suffering, since he grew up in pampered private schools and now lives in the luxury of a Beverly Hills mansion.
So Sullivan dresses as a hobo and tries to live on the road looking for “trouble”. But Sullivan is a very valuable man, and the studio tries hard to protect him from any real “trouble”. But when Sullivan runs into real trouble, he learns the value of the laughter his films provide.
He gains this knowledge in a wonderful scene in the film that takes place in a Black church in the Deep South. The congregation looks to care for people less fortunate than themselves. So they invite members of a chain gang to visit their church for the picture show. For a moment, the congregation and the prisoners forget their sorrows as they laugh at the travails of Mickey Mouse’s dog Pluto. (Off the subject, but as they ask in Stand By Me, why can Goofy talk but not Pluto?)
It is tempting to think that the little things we do in life are meaningless. But it is not meaningless to make others laugh. Or to provide small acts of kindness. According to I Corinthians 10:31 we can even give glory to God when we eat and drink.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about the bigger problems in the world. We should seek God’s wisdom to find ways to feed the hungry, cure the sick and protect the oppressed. But God has put us all in our particular place in the world, and we are to do the work God has prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10).
Not that our hearts shouldn’t ache for the suffering in the world – Jesus was certainly concerned. But He also spent years in the carpenter’s trade and took time to laugh with children. As Sullivan learns in the film, the world has enough trouble. We don’t have to look for it.
Oh, and I should mention again, Sullivan’s Travels is very funny, full of slapstick and dry wit. And Veronica Lake of the hair covering the face plays The Girl (she’s called that in the credits) and she was never lovelier. And if you ever wondered where the Coen brothers got their title for Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, it was from Sturges.
According to the website of Bread for the Hungry, more than 854 million people in the world go hungry. In developing countries nearly 16 million children die every year from preventable and treatable causes. Sixty percent of these deaths are from hunger and malnutrition.
According to World Vision’s website, more than a billion children subsist on less than a dollar a day. Also according to World Vision, fifteen million children around the world have lost one or both parents to AIDS and 6,000 more are added each day.
According to Christians in Crisis International, in the last 2,000 years, 43,000,000 Christians have been martyred for their faith; over half of those were in the last century. Over two hundred million Christians face persecution today, and on average 300 Christian believers die each day for their faith.
I sometimes think about statistics like these when I go through my day-to-day activities. When I’m trying to decide whether to buy Mission Brand or Doritos Brand corn chips at the grocery store. Or when I’m on the phone with a potential customer at the hotel and helping to decide whether to get a standard room or spend a few hundred dollars more for a suite. Or when I’m writing a movie column.
So many of the things we do in our life seem so inconsequential when compared with the trials and struggles so many people face in the world. Sometimes it seems that all of our pursuits, vocationally, personally and even spiritually are trivial if one considers them in the light of the “big picture”.
Well, there is a “little picture” that can help put this existential dilemma into perspective. The picture, titled Sullivan’s Travels (1941) is considered by many to be the masterpiece of writer and director Preston Sturges, even compared some of his other wonderful films such as The Lady Eve and The Palm Beach Story.
In the film, Sullivan (Joel McCrea) is a movie director known for his zany comedies (such as Hey, Hey in the Hayloft and Ants in Your Pants of 1938), but when he considers the continuing economic straits in the country and the war in Europe he wonders if he shouldn’t be doing something more serious. He decides to make a film that explores the human condition, O Brother, Where Art Thou? But Sullivan’s staff questions whether he can really understand suffering, since he grew up in pampered private schools and now lives in the luxury of a Beverly Hills mansion.
So Sullivan dresses as a hobo and tries to live on the road looking for “trouble”. But Sullivan is a very valuable man, and the studio tries hard to protect him from any real “trouble”. But when Sullivan runs into real trouble, he learns the value of the laughter his films provide.
He gains this knowledge in a wonderful scene in the film that takes place in a Black church in the Deep South. The congregation looks to care for people less fortunate than themselves. So they invite members of a chain gang to visit their church for the picture show. For a moment, the congregation and the prisoners forget their sorrows as they laugh at the travails of Mickey Mouse’s dog Pluto. (Off the subject, but as they ask in Stand By Me, why can Goofy talk but not Pluto?)
It is tempting to think that the little things we do in life are meaningless. But it is not meaningless to make others laugh. Or to provide small acts of kindness. According to I Corinthians 10:31 we can even give glory to God when we eat and drink.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about the bigger problems in the world. We should seek God’s wisdom to find ways to feed the hungry, cure the sick and protect the oppressed. But God has put us all in our particular place in the world, and we are to do the work God has prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10).
Not that our hearts shouldn’t ache for the suffering in the world – Jesus was certainly concerned. But He also spent years in the carpenter’s trade and took time to laugh with children. As Sullivan learns in the film, the world has enough trouble. We don’t have to look for it.
Oh, and I should mention again, Sullivan’s Travels is very funny, full of slapstick and dry wit. And Veronica Lake of the hair covering the face plays The Girl (she’s called that in the credits) and she was never lovelier. And if you ever wondered where the Coen brothers got their title for Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, it was from Sturges.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Spoiling, In a Good Way
I want to warn you now that this article is full of spoilers.
What? Some of you are unclear on the term “spoilers”? You haven’t been reading your internet movie reviews. At a variety of movie sites you can read reviews of movies that are seen before the films are released. Sometimes you can read reviews of scripts before a film is even produced. Often the reviewers will warn *minor spoilers* or *major spoilers*, depending on whether they plan on giving away minor plot details or every twist and turn in the story.
Some people like spoilers, some don’t.
I prefer not to know what’s going to happen in the movies I watch and the books I read; I want to be surprised. On the other hand, my wife Mindy often reads the ends of novels before deciding if she wants to go on reading. She does this with mysteries. This is a mystery to me.
Some people like spoilers, some don’t.
*Major Spoilers*! I plan on giving away the whole plot of a certain film, and not only that, but some major spoilers about life itself.
So if you were planning on rushing out to rent F.W. Murau’s silent German Expressionist classic The Last Laugh, and you don’t want to know how it ends, quit reading now!
Emil Jannings plays the doorman (or porter) of an elite German hotel. He is proud of his job and especially proud of his gaudy uniform. When he returns from work to his dilapidated tenement, his neighbors treat him with deference and respect because of his big lapels and shiny buttons.
But the doorman is getting on in years, and when the manager of the hotel sees him take a long break after struggling with heavy luggage, the manager demotes him to restroom attendant.
The new job does not have the status of doorman and does not have a uniform.
So the former doorman decides to steal a uniform so he can still wear it when he’s back in his neighborhood. But when a neighbor spies him at work in the restroom, he becomes the laughing stock of the neighborhood.
The man breaks down in tears when he returns the uniform to the hotel security guard. And then the film makers show one of the most amazing title cards in silent films.
I’m paraphrasing a bit, but the card says something like this: “In real life, the porter would have little to look forward to, except his own death. However, the writer took pity upon the man and added this unexpected epilogue.”
The film then shows guests in the hotel laughing as they read a newspaper article. The article tells about a millionaire who died in the arms of a hotel restroom attendant. The millionaire’s last will and testament specified that his entire fortune would go to the person who held him as he died.
The final minutes of the film show the former doorman of the hotel enjoying the hotel’s luxuries, along with his friend the security guard. The film ends with the new millionaire tipping all of the bell staff before riding off in a convertible.
The title card that changes the doorman’s fortune is a classic “Deus ex machine” device (or ‘God from the machine’). This is a phrase that originated in Greek drama, when the writer would paint his characters into such a difficult situation that the only solution was an arbitrary plot intervention by one of the many Greek gods.
It is usually quite an annoying device in a play, book or film.
If an ordinary Western story concludes with a UFO blasting the bad guy with lasers in the climatic gun fight or a parent’s objection to the love match in a Victorian romance resolved by having Dr. Phil enter in and give counsel, the audience is understandably upset.
But somehow, this device works in The Last Laugh, because the film makers are so transparent about its use. A (slightly) more recent use of blatant “Deus ex machine” is found in Wayne’s World. The film appears to be ending with our hero Wayne losing the girl and the villain triumphant. But Wayne speaks to the camera and suggests a different ending. They first try the Scooby Doo ending (“I would have succeeded, too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids”) and then finish with the mega-happy ending.
I think the “God from the machine” device works because there is an acknowledgement of a creator outside of the fictional world. Of course, we get ourselves into impossible situations. Particularly, we’ve got the problem of sin (Romans 6:23 – “The wages of sin is death”), and we need help to get us out of our predicament.
Fortunately, help did come from out of our world, when Jesus came to save us (John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling with us.”)
I don’t mind that “Deus ex machine” at all. And when I said before that I don’t like spoilers -- well, Jesus perhaps gave away the biggest spoiler of all when He said in John 14:3, “I go to prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”
I don’t mind that spoiler at all.
The Last Laugh (1924) (original German title, Der Letzte Mann) directed by F.W. Murau, written by Carl Mayer, starring Emil Jannings. No objectionable content.
Wayne’s World (1992) directed by Penelope Spheeris, written and starring Mike Myers. Some offensive language and humor, and a gratuitous sex scene clearly marked with subtitles as “GRATUITOUS SEX SCENE”
What? Some of you are unclear on the term “spoilers”? You haven’t been reading your internet movie reviews. At a variety of movie sites you can read reviews of movies that are seen before the films are released. Sometimes you can read reviews of scripts before a film is even produced. Often the reviewers will warn *minor spoilers* or *major spoilers*, depending on whether they plan on giving away minor plot details or every twist and turn in the story.
Some people like spoilers, some don’t.
I prefer not to know what’s going to happen in the movies I watch and the books I read; I want to be surprised. On the other hand, my wife Mindy often reads the ends of novels before deciding if she wants to go on reading. She does this with mysteries. This is a mystery to me.
Some people like spoilers, some don’t.
*Major Spoilers*! I plan on giving away the whole plot of a certain film, and not only that, but some major spoilers about life itself.
So if you were planning on rushing out to rent F.W. Murau’s silent German Expressionist classic The Last Laugh, and you don’t want to know how it ends, quit reading now!
Emil Jannings plays the doorman (or porter) of an elite German hotel. He is proud of his job and especially proud of his gaudy uniform. When he returns from work to his dilapidated tenement, his neighbors treat him with deference and respect because of his big lapels and shiny buttons.
But the doorman is getting on in years, and when the manager of the hotel sees him take a long break after struggling with heavy luggage, the manager demotes him to restroom attendant.
The new job does not have the status of doorman and does not have a uniform.
So the former doorman decides to steal a uniform so he can still wear it when he’s back in his neighborhood. But when a neighbor spies him at work in the restroom, he becomes the laughing stock of the neighborhood.
The man breaks down in tears when he returns the uniform to the hotel security guard. And then the film makers show one of the most amazing title cards in silent films.
I’m paraphrasing a bit, but the card says something like this: “In real life, the porter would have little to look forward to, except his own death. However, the writer took pity upon the man and added this unexpected epilogue.”
The film then shows guests in the hotel laughing as they read a newspaper article. The article tells about a millionaire who died in the arms of a hotel restroom attendant. The millionaire’s last will and testament specified that his entire fortune would go to the person who held him as he died.
The final minutes of the film show the former doorman of the hotel enjoying the hotel’s luxuries, along with his friend the security guard. The film ends with the new millionaire tipping all of the bell staff before riding off in a convertible.
The title card that changes the doorman’s fortune is a classic “Deus ex machine” device (or ‘God from the machine’). This is a phrase that originated in Greek drama, when the writer would paint his characters into such a difficult situation that the only solution was an arbitrary plot intervention by one of the many Greek gods.
It is usually quite an annoying device in a play, book or film.
If an ordinary Western story concludes with a UFO blasting the bad guy with lasers in the climatic gun fight or a parent’s objection to the love match in a Victorian romance resolved by having Dr. Phil enter in and give counsel, the audience is understandably upset.
But somehow, this device works in The Last Laugh, because the film makers are so transparent about its use. A (slightly) more recent use of blatant “Deus ex machine” is found in Wayne’s World. The film appears to be ending with our hero Wayne losing the girl and the villain triumphant. But Wayne speaks to the camera and suggests a different ending. They first try the Scooby Doo ending (“I would have succeeded, too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids”) and then finish with the mega-happy ending.
I think the “God from the machine” device works because there is an acknowledgement of a creator outside of the fictional world. Of course, we get ourselves into impossible situations. Particularly, we’ve got the problem of sin (Romans 6:23 – “The wages of sin is death”), and we need help to get us out of our predicament.
Fortunately, help did come from out of our world, when Jesus came to save us (John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling with us.”)
I don’t mind that “Deus ex machine” at all. And when I said before that I don’t like spoilers -- well, Jesus perhaps gave away the biggest spoiler of all when He said in John 14:3, “I go to prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”
I don’t mind that spoiler at all.
The Last Laugh (1924) (original German title, Der Letzte Mann) directed by F.W. Murau, written by Carl Mayer, starring Emil Jannings. No objectionable content.
Wayne’s World (1992) directed by Penelope Spheeris, written and starring Mike Myers. Some offensive language and humor, and a gratuitous sex scene clearly marked with subtitles as “GRATUITOUS SEX SCENE”
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
About Christian Films (Eventually)
Over the last year, a number of films have been released about the war in Iraq and more generally about the United States’ policies on terror. These films have almost uniformly flopped, both financially and critically.
Why?
I don’t want to write about the politics of the war. I know that people in our congregation cover the whole spectrum of views from far right to far left, as does the nation. I don’t really even want to talk about the Iraq War films, but I think there is something important to learn from them. The interesting thing is that these films (In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition, Lions for Lambs, etc.) failed in the “blue” (liberal, Democrat) states as well as the “red” (conservative, Republican) states.
There were major talents involved with making these films. Lions for Lambs, for instance, was directed by Oscar winning Robert Redford. He acted in the film along with Oscar winner Meryl Streep and box office champ Tom Cruise. Cruise has a long streak of films that make over one hundred million dollars. This film made fifteen million in the U.S. At the ratings review website Rottentomatoes.com, Lions for Lambs received positive reviews from only twenty-seven percent of the critics.
In the Valley of Elah, from the director of the Oscar winning Crash (Paul Haggis); Redacted, directed by Brian DePalma (Carrie, The Untouchables, Scarface) and Rendition, starring Legally Blonde’s Reese Witherspoon and Spiderman’s Jake Gyllenhaal all were even less successful at the box office and didn’t fare well with the critics either.
Even last year’s Oscar-nominated Iraq documentaries No End in Sight, Operation Homecoming, and the winner, Taxi to the Darkside, have all underperformed at the box office even though they won critical acclaim.
I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention that I didn’t see any of these films, so I’m not fit to discuss their merit.
Which brings me to the topic of Christian films. Admittedly, it leads me indirectly to the topic of Christian films, but we’re still here. Here’s the connection: I believe these Iraq films fail for the same reason that many films made by Christians through the years have failed both in the critical sense and failed to reach a broad audience.
Here are some of those reasons:
1) Films should tell a story rather than preach.
Fair or not, I skipped these films for the same reason I believe many other people skipped these films. I assumed they were made to teach a lesson rather than entertain. People want to know these things about a film: “Is it exciting?” “Is it funny?” “Is it scary?” “Are the stars pretty?”
“Will I learn anything?” sadly falls way down the list.
There’s nothing wrong with preaching in my book. I do it on occasion. But some people would rather avoid it altogether, and they certainly don’t want to pay for it.
I find it interesting that the film from the recent batch of terrorism films that did best was The Kingdom. I believe it did better because it was sold as an action film rather than an issue film.
The problem with many political films and Christian films is that the filmmakers are more concerned with the message they are trying to present rather than with making an entertaining story.
2) Characters in the films are too black or white.
This is a problem with both the Iraq films and the Christian films, but it plays out in polar opposites. Many people avoided the Iraq films because they heard that the politicians or, even worse, the soldiers were portrayed as mustache-twirling villains. Many Christian films present Christian characters that are pure and holy creatures that we just can’t relate to. The great heroes of the Scripture are complex. Abraham founded a nation, but he was also a liar. David was a great king, but also an adulterer and murderer. The villains are complex as well: Pilate seems at times to be working to save the life of Jesus, Saul is loved by his son and David. These films failed to present characters that are as complicated and interesting as people from real life.
3) “Tell me something I don’t know.”
In 2004, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 broke box office records, becoming the most successful documentary ever released. It won wide critical acclaim and the Oscar for Best Documentary. And it was about the war in Iraq.
Why did this film succeed while last year’s films failed? I think it’s because the ideas in the film (that the war was based on lies, that civil liberties were being violated, that the media was complicit in deceiving the public, etc.) were still fresh at that time. Whether we agree or disagree with those ideas, most of us feel we have heard all of those arguments from newspapers, the internet, TV and private conversations.
This is a challenge for Christian filmmakers as well. Whether the average American really understands Christianity or not, it would be hard to come across an American who doesn’t believe that he (or she) knows what Christianity is all about.
4) We don’t want to have our values insulted.
As I mentioned, the Iraq films didn’t do well with any particular political constituency. But I think it is obvious that there was a sizable portion of the film-going public who knew these films would present views counter to their political views, so they chose to avoid them.
There are a sizable number of people that will avoid a Christian film because they aren’t Christians and are concerned that their values will be insulted.
You’ll notice I have not referenced any specific Christian films. I just didn’t feel the need to insult work that Christians made with the best of motives to bring glory to God. And some of these films have provided encouragement to some of the readers of this column, so they have value.
But I find it interesting that many of the best Christian films (I’ll pick Tender Mercies as my example here) were not made by Christians (or at least, the film makers didn’t proclaim their faith while promoting their films). And some of the great Christian stories (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or Crime and Punishment) are not even initially recognized as such. When God took the form of a man in Jesus Christ, He kind of sneaked up on people. He told entertaining stories with messages that were not obvious. But the stories worked into people’s hearts and minds and eventually changed lives. I hope future films have sly Christian messages that will do the same.
Why?
I don’t want to write about the politics of the war. I know that people in our congregation cover the whole spectrum of views from far right to far left, as does the nation. I don’t really even want to talk about the Iraq War films, but I think there is something important to learn from them. The interesting thing is that these films (In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition, Lions for Lambs, etc.) failed in the “blue” (liberal, Democrat) states as well as the “red” (conservative, Republican) states.
There were major talents involved with making these films. Lions for Lambs, for instance, was directed by Oscar winning Robert Redford. He acted in the film along with Oscar winner Meryl Streep and box office champ Tom Cruise. Cruise has a long streak of films that make over one hundred million dollars. This film made fifteen million in the U.S. At the ratings review website Rottentomatoes.com, Lions for Lambs received positive reviews from only twenty-seven percent of the critics.
In the Valley of Elah, from the director of the Oscar winning Crash (Paul Haggis); Redacted, directed by Brian DePalma (Carrie, The Untouchables, Scarface) and Rendition, starring Legally Blonde’s Reese Witherspoon and Spiderman’s Jake Gyllenhaal all were even less successful at the box office and didn’t fare well with the critics either.
Even last year’s Oscar-nominated Iraq documentaries No End in Sight, Operation Homecoming, and the winner, Taxi to the Darkside, have all underperformed at the box office even though they won critical acclaim.
I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention that I didn’t see any of these films, so I’m not fit to discuss their merit.
Which brings me to the topic of Christian films. Admittedly, it leads me indirectly to the topic of Christian films, but we’re still here. Here’s the connection: I believe these Iraq films fail for the same reason that many films made by Christians through the years have failed both in the critical sense and failed to reach a broad audience.
Here are some of those reasons:
1) Films should tell a story rather than preach.
Fair or not, I skipped these films for the same reason I believe many other people skipped these films. I assumed they were made to teach a lesson rather than entertain. People want to know these things about a film: “Is it exciting?” “Is it funny?” “Is it scary?” “Are the stars pretty?”
“Will I learn anything?” sadly falls way down the list.
There’s nothing wrong with preaching in my book. I do it on occasion. But some people would rather avoid it altogether, and they certainly don’t want to pay for it.
I find it interesting that the film from the recent batch of terrorism films that did best was The Kingdom. I believe it did better because it was sold as an action film rather than an issue film.
The problem with many political films and Christian films is that the filmmakers are more concerned with the message they are trying to present rather than with making an entertaining story.
2) Characters in the films are too black or white.
This is a problem with both the Iraq films and the Christian films, but it plays out in polar opposites. Many people avoided the Iraq films because they heard that the politicians or, even worse, the soldiers were portrayed as mustache-twirling villains. Many Christian films present Christian characters that are pure and holy creatures that we just can’t relate to. The great heroes of the Scripture are complex. Abraham founded a nation, but he was also a liar. David was a great king, but also an adulterer and murderer. The villains are complex as well: Pilate seems at times to be working to save the life of Jesus, Saul is loved by his son and David. These films failed to present characters that are as complicated and interesting as people from real life.
3) “Tell me something I don’t know.”
In 2004, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 broke box office records, becoming the most successful documentary ever released. It won wide critical acclaim and the Oscar for Best Documentary. And it was about the war in Iraq.
Why did this film succeed while last year’s films failed? I think it’s because the ideas in the film (that the war was based on lies, that civil liberties were being violated, that the media was complicit in deceiving the public, etc.) were still fresh at that time. Whether we agree or disagree with those ideas, most of us feel we have heard all of those arguments from newspapers, the internet, TV and private conversations.
This is a challenge for Christian filmmakers as well. Whether the average American really understands Christianity or not, it would be hard to come across an American who doesn’t believe that he (or she) knows what Christianity is all about.
4) We don’t want to have our values insulted.
As I mentioned, the Iraq films didn’t do well with any particular political constituency. But I think it is obvious that there was a sizable portion of the film-going public who knew these films would present views counter to their political views, so they chose to avoid them.
There are a sizable number of people that will avoid a Christian film because they aren’t Christians and are concerned that their values will be insulted.
You’ll notice I have not referenced any specific Christian films. I just didn’t feel the need to insult work that Christians made with the best of motives to bring glory to God. And some of these films have provided encouragement to some of the readers of this column, so they have value.
But I find it interesting that many of the best Christian films (I’ll pick Tender Mercies as my example here) were not made by Christians (or at least, the film makers didn’t proclaim their faith while promoting their films). And some of the great Christian stories (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or Crime and Punishment) are not even initially recognized as such. When God took the form of a man in Jesus Christ, He kind of sneaked up on people. He told entertaining stories with messages that were not obvious. But the stories worked into people’s hearts and minds and eventually changed lives. I hope future films have sly Christian messages that will do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
