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=
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
For Crying "Up" Loud
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)
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)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Pixar Rankings
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.
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.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Boldly Going Where Bill Shatner Went Before
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.)
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.)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Hitchcock Films I Haven't Seen
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.
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.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Hitchcock Films I've Seen: Day Eight, Last Day
Six films today, rather than five to finish it up.
THE BIRDS (1963) - This is the only film Hitchcock made that verges on the supernatural. The attack the birds (birds of all kinds) make on the human race is never explained. This is the closest thing he made to a monster movie. And for many people, this is all they think of when they think of Hitchcock. I grew up watching this film, it seemed to be shown more than any other Hitchcock film on TV. And it takes place in Bodega Bay, near my home town. We would go there when we went to the beach. I loved hearing them mention "Santa Rosa".
There are odd things about this film. Tippi Hedron seems stiff and her interactions with Rod Taylor do seem poorly written. But something about the artifice of the human relations make the bird attacks seem more real, more terrible. And almost as iconic as the cropduster scene from NORTH BY NORTHWEST and the shower scene from PSYCHO, it the scene in the film of the birds gathering on the jungle gym.
MARNIE (1964) - I remember reading a Hitchcock book by Donald Spoto in which he argued that the awful rear projection in this film was intentional. Later, I read somewhere that he admitted he was being too defensive of Hitchcock and this was just a weak film. I'd have to agree with the latter accessment. Hitchcock's sexual perversity is quite strongly on display in this film. It's unpleasant but not very insightful. Sean Connery gives one of his worse performances in this film. Tippi Hendron was not great in THE BIRDS, but in the last scenes of that film she really comes through. She is out of her depth in this film. And the Freudian phychology, that might have seemed cutting edge in its time now seems dated and superficial.
TORN CURTAIN (1966) - Paul Newman was from the method school of acting, a school Hitchcock did not care for. It is said when asked by an actor for motivation, Hitch replied, "Your paycheck." Newman is not at his best in this film, and neither is Julie Andrews (she isn't ever given the opportunity that Doris Day was given to sing.) It is a weak effort by Hitchcock, but it does have some things worth watching. It is a cold war story in which the Commies are truly the bad guys. It has powerful scene in which Hitchcock tried to show how hard it is to kill a man. And there are other moments of geniune tension.
TOPAZ (1969) - This may well be Hitchcock's worst film (especially if you exclude all his silent work.) It is amazing that before THE BIRDS, Hitchcock made three straight masterpieces and this is the third bad film that Hitchcock made in a row. This film was forced on the director by Universal Studios, and Hitch reported this adaptation of a Leon Uris novel was his most unhappy effort.
FRENZY (1972) - Throughout most of his career, Hitch had to find was to weasel content around the censors. In this R rated film, Hitch did not need to restrain himself. He able to depict graphic violence and nudity. I think this often led to great creativity and ingenuity on Hitchcock's part. But this is still a very good serial killer film. I hear that Michael Caine had been asked to play the role of Barry Foster's role but Caine turned him down. It is one of those tantalizing could have beens.
FAMILY PLOT (1976) - Hitchcock's last film. And it is a good one. I'm glad he went out with a suspense comedy, which he made more often than pure horror films. A kidnapping film that pits flakey con men versus cold blooded killers. Karen Black, who I usually consider an inexplicable star of the 70's, was good in this film. And Bruce Dern is very good. And it has Coach from CHEERS. Soon,if anyone cares, I'll list the Hitchcock films I haven't seen.
THE BIRDS (1963) - This is the only film Hitchcock made that verges on the supernatural. The attack the birds (birds of all kinds) make on the human race is never explained. This is the closest thing he made to a monster movie. And for many people, this is all they think of when they think of Hitchcock. I grew up watching this film, it seemed to be shown more than any other Hitchcock film on TV. And it takes place in Bodega Bay, near my home town. We would go there when we went to the beach. I loved hearing them mention "Santa Rosa".
There are odd things about this film. Tippi Hedron seems stiff and her interactions with Rod Taylor do seem poorly written. But something about the artifice of the human relations make the bird attacks seem more real, more terrible. And almost as iconic as the cropduster scene from NORTH BY NORTHWEST and the shower scene from PSYCHO, it the scene in the film of the birds gathering on the jungle gym.
MARNIE (1964) - I remember reading a Hitchcock book by Donald Spoto in which he argued that the awful rear projection in this film was intentional. Later, I read somewhere that he admitted he was being too defensive of Hitchcock and this was just a weak film. I'd have to agree with the latter accessment. Hitchcock's sexual perversity is quite strongly on display in this film. It's unpleasant but not very insightful. Sean Connery gives one of his worse performances in this film. Tippi Hendron was not great in THE BIRDS, but in the last scenes of that film she really comes through. She is out of her depth in this film. And the Freudian phychology, that might have seemed cutting edge in its time now seems dated and superficial.
TORN CURTAIN (1966) - Paul Newman was from the method school of acting, a school Hitchcock did not care for. It is said when asked by an actor for motivation, Hitch replied, "Your paycheck." Newman is not at his best in this film, and neither is Julie Andrews (she isn't ever given the opportunity that Doris Day was given to sing.) It is a weak effort by Hitchcock, but it does have some things worth watching. It is a cold war story in which the Commies are truly the bad guys. It has powerful scene in which Hitchcock tried to show how hard it is to kill a man. And there are other moments of geniune tension.
TOPAZ (1969) - This may well be Hitchcock's worst film (especially if you exclude all his silent work.) It is amazing that before THE BIRDS, Hitchcock made three straight masterpieces and this is the third bad film that Hitchcock made in a row. This film was forced on the director by Universal Studios, and Hitch reported this adaptation of a Leon Uris novel was his most unhappy effort.
FRENZY (1972) - Throughout most of his career, Hitch had to find was to weasel content around the censors. In this R rated film, Hitch did not need to restrain himself. He able to depict graphic violence and nudity. I think this often led to great creativity and ingenuity on Hitchcock's part. But this is still a very good serial killer film. I hear that Michael Caine had been asked to play the role of Barry Foster's role but Caine turned him down. It is one of those tantalizing could have beens.
FAMILY PLOT (1976) - Hitchcock's last film. And it is a good one. I'm glad he went out with a suspense comedy, which he made more often than pure horror films. A kidnapping film that pits flakey con men versus cold blooded killers. Karen Black, who I usually consider an inexplicable star of the 70's, was good in this film. And Bruce Dern is very good. And it has Coach from CHEERS. Soon,if anyone cares, I'll list the Hitchcock films I haven't seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
