Mustard
How hard could have been for my mother to remember what my brother and I wanted on our sandwiches? After all, we both wanted liverwurst. Of course, he wanted the Butcher’s Branch liverwurst, which was sliced. Whereas I wanted the braunsweiger that was a spread. Of course, there was the type of bread for her to keep in mind. Now who was it that wanted wheat, and who wanted white?
When it came to which kind of pickle to put on the sandwich, it was simplicity itself. Dale and I both hated sweet pickles and bread and butter pickles. Dill pickles were, and even to this day are, the only pickles Dale and I will eat. Of course, one of us wanted pickle on the liverwurst sandwich and the other didn’t. (Which was easy, really, because Mom just had to remember it was the opposite of the one who wanted dill pickle on a hamburger and who didn’t.)
Now, Mom could get the liverwurst right, and the bread right, and the pickle right, and even remember which sandwich should be sliced and which shouldn’t. None of it would matter if she got the mustard wrong.
My brother Dale preferred French’s mustard, which was a tad spicier than my Morehouse brand mustard. And if you think we couldn’t tell the difference, then you have gravely underestimated the nuanced elementary school palate.
I continue to be astonished that not only did our mother listen to our finicky requests, but that on a fairly regular basis, she fulfilled them. It’s almost more astonishing than a mother’s capacity to clean up vomit or endure scoreless soccer matches.
My mother could remember all of our dry cereal preferences, how dark we liked our toast, the right cheeses for grilled cheese sandwiches, who liked cinnamon on applesauce and who didn’t, tomato soup or chicken noodle, green or red apples, chips or pretzels (and about those chips – corn or potato), and she knew who preferred low fat and who preferred non-fat milk.
I think of my mother while making lunches for my kids. The boy, the oldest, wants peanut butter and jelly on wheat bread, strawberry jam and only Skippy peanut butter – CRUNCHY. The middle child, girl, would like a piece of steak, but if she can’t have that, she’ll settle for no more than five and no less than three pieces of salami on a flour tortilla. The youngest girl – ham, lettuce, Monterey Jack cheese on a hamburger bun.
I sometimes wonder what’s a more fitting cosmic retribution for those liverwurst sandwich demands: my children’s lunch orders or occasional bouts of gout?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Up in the Air
Everything is pretty from far away. Especially from high above. A dump, a swamp, a sewage plant… nothing looks too bad if viewed from thousands of feet in the air. Something about keeping a distance.
Last year’s award nominated film, Up in the Air, provides many lovely aerial shots, along with a clever script, humor and competent performances.
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a big believer in keeping his distance. His life is about not letting anything, or especially anyone, close to him. In this film, directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking and Juno) from the novel by Walter Kim, Ryan Bingham has based his life and his philosophy on travel. He spends all but a couple of his weeks in airplanes, conference rooms, rental cars and hotel rooms. The few weeks at “home” are in an apartment with as much personality as the hotel rooms that are more of a home to him.
Bingham has two jobs. One is as roving “life transition consultant” (he fires people for bosses and corporations who would rather avoid such messy situations) and as a motivational speaker. In his speeches he uses the metaphor of a backpack. He asks his audience to imagine a backpack on their shoulders. He asks them to load the knick knacks of their houses into the backpack and then to imagine the feel of the straps on their shoulders. Then he asks them to imagine their furniture and car and house or apartment all in the backpack and the weight they would feel and the impossibility of moving around.
Then he asks the audience to imagine their friends and family in the backpack. He argues that the more attachments one has, the tougher it is to move -- and moving is life. Talking to salespeople, he changes metaphors, and says they are sharks, and if they stop moving, they will die.
There is something to be said about not being attached to material possessions. Jesus has a lot to say about being willing to give up stuff that would weigh us down. But in the film, Bingham reconsiders his attitude toward relationships.
It’s true that keeping people at a distance keeps us from ugly sights (aerial views are prettier). But ultimately, Bingham learns that though people sometimes add to our loads, more often people help us carry our loads.
In his job, he sees people that lose their jobs and have no place to turn, as opposed to the people who face such difficulties with the support of friends and family. The film also has an extensive scene in a Lutheran church. Sure, it’s for a wedding, but it is a reminder of another place support can be found to carry our loads.
The writer of Hebrews, in chapter 25:10, wrote, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
We might be able to travel more quickly on our own. But we won’t necessarily get where we want to be.
(Up in the Air is rated R for sexual situations, language, and nudity.)
Last year’s award nominated film, Up in the Air, provides many lovely aerial shots, along with a clever script, humor and competent performances.
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a big believer in keeping his distance. His life is about not letting anything, or especially anyone, close to him. In this film, directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking and Juno) from the novel by Walter Kim, Ryan Bingham has based his life and his philosophy on travel. He spends all but a couple of his weeks in airplanes, conference rooms, rental cars and hotel rooms. The few weeks at “home” are in an apartment with as much personality as the hotel rooms that are more of a home to him.
Bingham has two jobs. One is as roving “life transition consultant” (he fires people for bosses and corporations who would rather avoid such messy situations) and as a motivational speaker. In his speeches he uses the metaphor of a backpack. He asks his audience to imagine a backpack on their shoulders. He asks them to load the knick knacks of their houses into the backpack and then to imagine the feel of the straps on their shoulders. Then he asks them to imagine their furniture and car and house or apartment all in the backpack and the weight they would feel and the impossibility of moving around.
Then he asks the audience to imagine their friends and family in the backpack. He argues that the more attachments one has, the tougher it is to move -- and moving is life. Talking to salespeople, he changes metaphors, and says they are sharks, and if they stop moving, they will die.
There is something to be said about not being attached to material possessions. Jesus has a lot to say about being willing to give up stuff that would weigh us down. But in the film, Bingham reconsiders his attitude toward relationships.
It’s true that keeping people at a distance keeps us from ugly sights (aerial views are prettier). But ultimately, Bingham learns that though people sometimes add to our loads, more often people help us carry our loads.
In his job, he sees people that lose their jobs and have no place to turn, as opposed to the people who face such difficulties with the support of friends and family. The film also has an extensive scene in a Lutheran church. Sure, it’s for a wedding, but it is a reminder of another place support can be found to carry our loads.
The writer of Hebrews, in chapter 25:10, wrote, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
We might be able to travel more quickly on our own. But we won’t necessarily get where we want to be.
(Up in the Air is rated R for sexual situations, language, and nudity.)
Thursday, December 31, 2009
My Top Seven Films for 2009
Sorry, just can't do a top ten left. I saw more than ten movies this year, but there are a lot I've missed as well. All of these films received a theatrical release in 2009 and all but one I saw in the theater. Also, as with all such lists, we're really talking about favorites rather than best. A little historical perspective is needed for a best list. So, starting with my favorite:
1)A SERIOUS MAN - This film had a shot at the list just because it's by the Coen brothers. But last year's BURN BEFORE READING was much further down the list. This tale of a modern Job is pretty sparce on hope, but not on humor. It makes the need for the true Messiah abundantly clear.
2) UP - Again, this was a likely canidate going in, Pixar had not had a loser yet. But this film more heartfelt emotion than one would expect of a cartoon with a giant talking bird named Kevin. Director Pete Doctor captured the joy and heartbreak of a life long relationship in moments. Yeah, I cried, okay. And as a fan of the great art that is "Dogs Playing Poker" (in Jr. High, I had them on a t-shirt), I had to love the dogs in this film.
3) MOON - Mick LeSalle of the SF Chronicle had this on his ten worst films list. I'm a regurlar reader and regular disagreer with Mick. Sam Rockwell gave a (many) great performance(s) in this story of a moon miner who discovers himself (again and again) on a three year mission. A Twilight Zone episode (not a slight at all) that could carry the burden of being stretched another hour. (And is there a less comforting companion than a Kevin Spacey voiced robot?)
4) (500) DAYS OF SUMMER - Zooey Deschanel is cute as can be, of course, but she is required to play a bit of a cypher as the Sid in the film. (SID AND NANCY, see both films and you'll understand.) But Joseph Gordon-Livitt (yeah, the kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN) carrys the film. With this and BRICK and THE LOOKOUT, I'm tempted to go to the theater to see anything he's in that doesn't have 'G.I.' or 'JOE' in the title. As the tag line says, this isn't a love story, but it is a great story about love (or the nature of romantic love.)
5) TAKEN - As Jonah Goldberg wrote, this is great 'Daddy porn'. We learn that the world, especially wives and daughters, would be better off if they would just listen to Dad. And when they don't, he'll go in and clean up the mess without even a "I told you so" because that's the kind of guy he is. Great action without noticable CGI.
6) DISTRICT 9 - Thoughtful science fiction about aliens stranded on Earth. Blatant, but not quite heavy handed references to apartheid (it's set in South Africa). Writer/director Neill Blomkamp obviously benifted from the assistance of producer Peter Jackson, but it's unique style is all his own. (Okay, it does steal abit from the BBC version of "The Office".)Sharlto Copley as Wikus Van De Merwe is such a bureaucratic weasel that it takes time before you realize he a hero. (Not the hero, a distinction that belongs to a "prawn".)
7) ZOMBIELAND - I had to see this as I'm writing a zombie book. And it is good zombie fun. Very funny intentionally, with one of the great cameo apperances of all time. Woody Harellson is the most fun he has been since "Cheers". Difinitely in my list of top five alltime zombie films. A film that teaches the importance of following the rules as well as the necessity of breaking them.
So, that's my top seven. In a month or two, I might fill a top ten but listing what else would have made the list.
Some films I saw this year and enjoyed, but didn't seem list worthy: EXTRACT okay, but not as good as the better episodes of Mike Judge's "King of the Hill"), STAR TREK (fun, but the plot didn't really hold together and I hated Spock's follow your heart speech at the end), PUBLIC ENEMIES, SHERLOCK HOLMES (worth seeing for Robert Downey, Jr.)
But these are some films I haven't seen that I think might round out the top ten: CORALINE, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, THE HURT LOCKER, UP IN THE AIR, BRIGHT STAR, SUNSHINE CLEANING and PRECIOUS. (I haven't seen AVATAR, but from what I've read about it, I can't imagine I'd put what of the most technilogically advanced movies of all time that harangs about the evils of technology on my list. I don't think I'll be able to overcome the tag "Dances with Smurfs" that some wag gave it.)
So to the imaginary readers of this blog (if you're real, let me know), Happy New Year!
1)A SERIOUS MAN - This film had a shot at the list just because it's by the Coen brothers. But last year's BURN BEFORE READING was much further down the list. This tale of a modern Job is pretty sparce on hope, but not on humor. It makes the need for the true Messiah abundantly clear.
2) UP - Again, this was a likely canidate going in, Pixar had not had a loser yet. But this film more heartfelt emotion than one would expect of a cartoon with a giant talking bird named Kevin. Director Pete Doctor captured the joy and heartbreak of a life long relationship in moments. Yeah, I cried, okay. And as a fan of the great art that is "Dogs Playing Poker" (in Jr. High, I had them on a t-shirt), I had to love the dogs in this film.
3) MOON - Mick LeSalle of the SF Chronicle had this on his ten worst films list. I'm a regurlar reader and regular disagreer with Mick. Sam Rockwell gave a (many) great performance(s) in this story of a moon miner who discovers himself (again and again) on a three year mission. A Twilight Zone episode (not a slight at all) that could carry the burden of being stretched another hour. (And is there a less comforting companion than a Kevin Spacey voiced robot?)
4) (500) DAYS OF SUMMER - Zooey Deschanel is cute as can be, of course, but she is required to play a bit of a cypher as the Sid in the film. (SID AND NANCY, see both films and you'll understand.) But Joseph Gordon-Livitt (yeah, the kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN) carrys the film. With this and BRICK and THE LOOKOUT, I'm tempted to go to the theater to see anything he's in that doesn't have 'G.I.' or 'JOE' in the title. As the tag line says, this isn't a love story, but it is a great story about love (or the nature of romantic love.)
5) TAKEN - As Jonah Goldberg wrote, this is great 'Daddy porn'. We learn that the world, especially wives and daughters, would be better off if they would just listen to Dad. And when they don't, he'll go in and clean up the mess without even a "I told you so" because that's the kind of guy he is. Great action without noticable CGI.
6) DISTRICT 9 - Thoughtful science fiction about aliens stranded on Earth. Blatant, but not quite heavy handed references to apartheid (it's set in South Africa). Writer/director Neill Blomkamp obviously benifted from the assistance of producer Peter Jackson, but it's unique style is all his own. (Okay, it does steal abit from the BBC version of "The Office".)Sharlto Copley as Wikus Van De Merwe is such a bureaucratic weasel that it takes time before you realize he a hero. (Not the hero, a distinction that belongs to a "prawn".)
7) ZOMBIELAND - I had to see this as I'm writing a zombie book. And it is good zombie fun. Very funny intentionally, with one of the great cameo apperances of all time. Woody Harellson is the most fun he has been since "Cheers". Difinitely in my list of top five alltime zombie films. A film that teaches the importance of following the rules as well as the necessity of breaking them.
So, that's my top seven. In a month or two, I might fill a top ten but listing what else would have made the list.
Some films I saw this year and enjoyed, but didn't seem list worthy: EXTRACT okay, but not as good as the better episodes of Mike Judge's "King of the Hill"), STAR TREK (fun, but the plot didn't really hold together and I hated Spock's follow your heart speech at the end), PUBLIC ENEMIES, SHERLOCK HOLMES (worth seeing for Robert Downey, Jr.)
But these are some films I haven't seen that I think might round out the top ten: CORALINE, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, THE HURT LOCKER, UP IN THE AIR, BRIGHT STAR, SUNSHINE CLEANING and PRECIOUS. (I haven't seen AVATAR, but from what I've read about it, I can't imagine I'd put what of the most technilogically advanced movies of all time that harangs about the evils of technology on my list. I don't think I'll be able to overcome the tag "Dances with Smurfs" that some wag gave it.)
So to the imaginary readers of this blog (if you're real, let me know), Happy New Year!
Monday, November 16, 2009
It's Not a New Story
“Bad artists copy…Great artists steal,” Picasso is alleged to have said. It’s a fun exercise to look for the story roots of many films in order to see where the theft occurred.
The Lion King, the popular Disney animated film and Broadway musical, is obviously not a wholly original story. The basic tale of a prince who contemplates revenge for his father’s death at the hand of his uncle is not a story that originated in the Magic Kingdom. It was told long ago under the name of “Hamlet”.
Clueless may have seemed like a dozen other teen comedies but it was actually a rather faithful adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma”.
Joel and Ethan Coen, the Academy Award winning film making team, love to play games with the sources of their film. Fargo opens with a grim title card stating that the story you are about to see is true, with only the names changed to protect the innocent, in the great tradition of “Dragnet”. Which is all hogwash: the tale of kidnapping and murder was completely fictional, as the brothers cheerfully admitted in later interviews.
The Coens convinced the Motion Picture Academy that the screenplay for their comedy O Brother Where Art Thou? should be nominated in the Adapted rather than the Original screenplay category. They claimed it was a retelling of Homer’s “Odyssey”. But the similarities between the two works are amusingly meager.
The Coen’s latest film, A Serious Man, makes no claim to be from any particular source in the credits. But it seems to be quite obviously based on the Biblical book of Job.
The film tells the story of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhbarg), a college physics teacher living in 1967 Minnesota. He soon finds himself engulfed in a series of mini-catastrophes. Admittedly, the trials he faces are nothing compared to those faced by Job. Job suffered the loss of his property, his servants, his livestock and most horrendous of all, his seven sons and three daughters.
Larry’s sufferings are a little more pedestrian. He suffers harassment from a student who tries to bribe him and then threatens a law suit. His children steal from him and treat him with little respect. His wife wants a divorce and forces him to move into a seedy motel down the road. And Larry is assaulted by the unending phone calls of the bureaucracy of the Columbia Record Company insisting he pay for albums he never requested.
Job was called, even by God, a righteous man. Larry is at best, the serious man of the title, striving to live up to the responsibilities and obligations of a husband, father and teacher.
Like Job, Larry believes that God is ultimately responsible for any trials he faces in life. Job had three friends who ministered to him (or plagued him, depending on how you look at it) and tried to explain God’s ways to Job. Larry seeks help from his synagogue’s three rabbis. Their help is rather comparable to the help Job receives from his friends.
On one of these visits to a rabbi, Larry asks, “Why does He allow us to wonder about the whys of life if He never intends to answer?” The rabbi has no answer.
I think we all share in Larry’s frustration. We somehow think that the minor and major sufferings in life would somehow be more bearable if someone would just explain to us why these things happen. If there was a reason, laid out clearly to us and perhaps allowing for a little of our input, then we could happily deal with everything life throws our way.
But it just won’t happen. It didn’t happen for Job and it won’t happen for us.
We do have something that Larry doesn’t appear to have. We have something that Job didn’t fully understand. Job longed for a mediator between God and man.
We know that Jesus came to be a mediator and that He experienced life as we experience it. Therefore, we may still not understand suffering in life, but we know we have a God that experienced it as we do, and He understands it. It may not be all we want. But it’s enough.
A Serious Man is rated R for strong language, sexual situations and nudity.
The Lion King is rated G, but has some strong themes and images that might disturb the very young
Clueless is rated PG-13 for language and sexual suggestion
Fargo is rated R for violence, language and sexual situations
O Brother Where Art Thou? is rated PG-13 for language and comic violence
The Lion King, the popular Disney animated film and Broadway musical, is obviously not a wholly original story. The basic tale of a prince who contemplates revenge for his father’s death at the hand of his uncle is not a story that originated in the Magic Kingdom. It was told long ago under the name of “Hamlet”.
Clueless may have seemed like a dozen other teen comedies but it was actually a rather faithful adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma”.
Joel and Ethan Coen, the Academy Award winning film making team, love to play games with the sources of their film. Fargo opens with a grim title card stating that the story you are about to see is true, with only the names changed to protect the innocent, in the great tradition of “Dragnet”. Which is all hogwash: the tale of kidnapping and murder was completely fictional, as the brothers cheerfully admitted in later interviews.
The Coens convinced the Motion Picture Academy that the screenplay for their comedy O Brother Where Art Thou? should be nominated in the Adapted rather than the Original screenplay category. They claimed it was a retelling of Homer’s “Odyssey”. But the similarities between the two works are amusingly meager.
The Coen’s latest film, A Serious Man, makes no claim to be from any particular source in the credits. But it seems to be quite obviously based on the Biblical book of Job.
The film tells the story of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhbarg), a college physics teacher living in 1967 Minnesota. He soon finds himself engulfed in a series of mini-catastrophes. Admittedly, the trials he faces are nothing compared to those faced by Job. Job suffered the loss of his property, his servants, his livestock and most horrendous of all, his seven sons and three daughters.
Larry’s sufferings are a little more pedestrian. He suffers harassment from a student who tries to bribe him and then threatens a law suit. His children steal from him and treat him with little respect. His wife wants a divorce and forces him to move into a seedy motel down the road. And Larry is assaulted by the unending phone calls of the bureaucracy of the Columbia Record Company insisting he pay for albums he never requested.
Job was called, even by God, a righteous man. Larry is at best, the serious man of the title, striving to live up to the responsibilities and obligations of a husband, father and teacher.
Like Job, Larry believes that God is ultimately responsible for any trials he faces in life. Job had three friends who ministered to him (or plagued him, depending on how you look at it) and tried to explain God’s ways to Job. Larry seeks help from his synagogue’s three rabbis. Their help is rather comparable to the help Job receives from his friends.
On one of these visits to a rabbi, Larry asks, “Why does He allow us to wonder about the whys of life if He never intends to answer?” The rabbi has no answer.
I think we all share in Larry’s frustration. We somehow think that the minor and major sufferings in life would somehow be more bearable if someone would just explain to us why these things happen. If there was a reason, laid out clearly to us and perhaps allowing for a little of our input, then we could happily deal with everything life throws our way.
But it just won’t happen. It didn’t happen for Job and it won’t happen for us.
We do have something that Larry doesn’t appear to have. We have something that Job didn’t fully understand. Job longed for a mediator between God and man.
We know that Jesus came to be a mediator and that He experienced life as we experience it. Therefore, we may still not understand suffering in life, but we know we have a God that experienced it as we do, and He understands it. It may not be all we want. But it’s enough.
A Serious Man is rated R for strong language, sexual situations and nudity.
The Lion King is rated G, but has some strong themes and images that might disturb the very young
Clueless is rated PG-13 for language and sexual suggestion
Fargo is rated R for violence, language and sexual situations
O Brother Where Art Thou? is rated PG-13 for language and comic violence
Thursday, October 15, 2009
500 Days of Summer
“She’s better than my dream girl. She’s real.”
That is my favorite line from a film filled with a lot of clever dialogue, (500) Days of Summer. It’s spoken by Paul (Matthew Gray Gubler) to an unseen interviewer when asked about his long time relationship with his girl friend. He first goes into a long list of the ideal qualities of his Perfect Woman. But then acknowledges he prefers reality.
It’s a key point in this film, which, as its tag line says, “is not a love story. This is a story about love.” Or as the other tag line says, “Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.” The film chronicles the 500 days of a young man named Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in his pursuit of a girl named Summer (Zooey Deschanel). Those days are not presented in chronological order, which is one of many stylized features of this clever comedy.
Tom believes in true love, and Summer scoffs at the idea. He believes there is one perfect girl that he will find and then all of life will fit together. Summer is just looking for a good time. Tom becomes convinced that Summer is his perfect girl and that they are meant for each other. Throughout the film, Tom tries to convince Summer he is right.
The thing I loved about this film is that it skewers many of our society’s false ideas about love and romance.
Tom believes in a love at first sight, that one can trust one’s feelings to know one’s life partner. While it is true that initial attraction can lead to something more, immediate attraction (the pull of hormones) isn’t necessarily trustworthy. God’s wisdom leads us to rely not just on our feelings, but also our minds and His Spirit for direction in such important decisions in our lives.
Summer believes there is no such thing as love. She observed the loveless marriage and subsequent divorce of her parents, and doesn’t believe that people really can care for more than their own needs and desires. Sadly, many in our society have come to believe that narcissism is the only real option for life. Summer learns from her relationship with Tom that there may be something more.
The couple enters into a sexual relationship quite early in their relationship. Our culture claims that this is no big deal, but the film shows that a sexual relationship without commitment has serious consequences. Inevitably, one person will believe such a step means more than the other. Seeing the pain this causes Tom reminds us that God did not call us to wait until marriage for sex because He is a killjoy. Sex was made for the context of safety found in a committed, exclusive relationship.
Sorry about being a little slow here. (500) Days of Summer came out in the summer but I just got to it a couple of weeks ago. But the movie has hung on in the theaters for months, having gathered a bit a cult following. It’s listed, as I write this, at #197 of the top 250 films of all time at IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base… remember though, this list is voted on chiefly by young computer geeks). Its following comes from solid performances, a smart script by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber and innovative direction from Marc Webb.
But I appreciated it most for showing what love is not. We, fortunately, can go to God and His Word to find out what it is.
(500) Days of Summer is rated PG-13 for language and sexual situations. It is scheduled for a Blu-Ray DVD release December 22.
That is my favorite line from a film filled with a lot of clever dialogue, (500) Days of Summer. It’s spoken by Paul (Matthew Gray Gubler) to an unseen interviewer when asked about his long time relationship with his girl friend. He first goes into a long list of the ideal qualities of his Perfect Woman. But then acknowledges he prefers reality.
It’s a key point in this film, which, as its tag line says, “is not a love story. This is a story about love.” Or as the other tag line says, “Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.” The film chronicles the 500 days of a young man named Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in his pursuit of a girl named Summer (Zooey Deschanel). Those days are not presented in chronological order, which is one of many stylized features of this clever comedy.
Tom believes in true love, and Summer scoffs at the idea. He believes there is one perfect girl that he will find and then all of life will fit together. Summer is just looking for a good time. Tom becomes convinced that Summer is his perfect girl and that they are meant for each other. Throughout the film, Tom tries to convince Summer he is right.
The thing I loved about this film is that it skewers many of our society’s false ideas about love and romance.
Tom believes in a love at first sight, that one can trust one’s feelings to know one’s life partner. While it is true that initial attraction can lead to something more, immediate attraction (the pull of hormones) isn’t necessarily trustworthy. God’s wisdom leads us to rely not just on our feelings, but also our minds and His Spirit for direction in such important decisions in our lives.
Summer believes there is no such thing as love. She observed the loveless marriage and subsequent divorce of her parents, and doesn’t believe that people really can care for more than their own needs and desires. Sadly, many in our society have come to believe that narcissism is the only real option for life. Summer learns from her relationship with Tom that there may be something more.
The couple enters into a sexual relationship quite early in their relationship. Our culture claims that this is no big deal, but the film shows that a sexual relationship without commitment has serious consequences. Inevitably, one person will believe such a step means more than the other. Seeing the pain this causes Tom reminds us that God did not call us to wait until marriage for sex because He is a killjoy. Sex was made for the context of safety found in a committed, exclusive relationship.
Sorry about being a little slow here. (500) Days of Summer came out in the summer but I just got to it a couple of weeks ago. But the movie has hung on in the theaters for months, having gathered a bit a cult following. It’s listed, as I write this, at #197 of the top 250 films of all time at IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base… remember though, this list is voted on chiefly by young computer geeks). Its following comes from solid performances, a smart script by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber and innovative direction from Marc Webb.
But I appreciated it most for showing what love is not. We, fortunately, can go to God and His Word to find out what it is.
(500) Days of Summer is rated PG-13 for language and sexual situations. It is scheduled for a Blu-Ray DVD release December 22.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Another Blog
If you've stumbled across this for what I write about movies, you might be interested in another blog of mine: www.ruamoviegenius.blogspot.com
Monday, October 5, 2009
New Oncourse Article on Kayne West
http://oncourse.ag.org/oc/features.cfm?targetBay=06d52a80-8681-49b2-871b-a4e5dc1c7708&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=12671&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1202&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=3459&RSS_Source=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
