A Different Take On 'I Read the Book'

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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.