Tag Archives: film

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Posted on by
1

star_trek_v_la_ultima_frontera_1989_1It’s not a bad movie. True, the first four were better. This fifth film is just a bit of a mess. The plot is slightly disjointed, leaving us wondering at different points why what is happening is happening. There are parts of the plot that are underdeveloped – why are the Kligans necessary? Some loose ends when it comes to character development – why tell us about painful pasts if its not going to make a significant difference? There is a lacking in storytelling that explains how we got from A to Z.

But maybe this is the difference between a film directed by William Shatner, like this one, and J. J. Abrams. Loose storytelling verses tight, consistent storytelling. Not to mention the scenes which Shatner had to have been inspired from other films from the time. The bar scene on Paradise City, looks like, feels like, and even sounds like the bar scene in Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back. Towards the end of the film as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy get closer to “discovering” God, it feels like, looks like, sounds like Indiana Jones. Does William Shatner want to be George Lucas?

And its a shame, really. The fifth film promises to truly go where no one has gone before: beyond the Great Barrier, where it is believed God (or as the credits say, “God”) resides. Shatner starts the film off with religious allusions. As the film opens, a mysterious figure clothed in what looks like a Biblical costume. He meets a man who is about to shoot him. “I though weapons were forbidden on this planet,” says the mysterious figure. He proceeds to touch the man with the gun in a healing fashion telling the man that his pain runs deep. “Share your pain . . with me.” The man immediately feels as if some pain has escaped him. “How can I repay you for this miracle?” he inquires.

The mysterious man reveals himself to be a Vulcan and the man who was healed commits to following him on his mission of peace and healing. At first glance, it appears that this mysterious Vulcan, who we later learn is Sybok who is Spock’s half-brother, is a Christ-figure. Which isn’t a far stretch, as we have already seen Spock as a Christ-figure in earlier films. Even though Sybok seems to possess power to heal deep, emotional pains, that is where the Christ-figure allusion ends.

Sybok takes hostage three delegates – General Korrd a Klingon, Caithlin Dar a Romulan, and the earthly St. John Talbot. The plan is draw a Federation starship to Paradise City. But, it turns out that all three delegates are in on the “hostage.” They want the Enterprise for their epic adventure in search for God.

In the meantime, Captain Klaa of the Klingons, proceeds to seek after the hostages to free General Korrd. But when he finds out that Captain James T. Kirk is involved, he changes his plans to go after Kirk. Klaa’s obsession with Kirk seems to serve no purpose other than as a distraction, until the end of the film.

The God figure that Sybok seeks turns out to be more of a Satan-like figure. While the figure appears to look like God in the Judeo-Christian tradition, he does not act like God. He is demanding, wanting the starship to escape the place he has been locked into. “What does God need with a starship?” Kirk asked. Furthermore, this figure is destroyed by the Klingons who are hunting after Kirk.

For a moment it would appear that Shatnar’s Star Trek is making a science-over-religion statement. The implication is that those who search for God are searching in vain. And that sentiment is echoed by so many in our world today. Why bother with the search for God, because once you find him, you will be greatly disappointed.

And yet, as the crew celebrates on the Enterprise on the return home, we find a glimmer of hope in the galaxy. As Spock and McCoy look out into the vastness of the unknown frontier, McCoy asks, “Is God really out there?” A question we have all probably asked at one point or another in our lives.

It is Captain Kirk that offers the final word. “Maybe he’s not out there at all. Maybe he’s right here,” he says as he touches his chest, “In the heart.”

Perhaps we are looking for God in all the wrong places.

Star Trek III: Search for Spock (1984)

Posted on by
Reply

Star Trek III The Search For Spock (1984) QuadAs the second film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, draws to a close, the crew of the Enterprise bid farewell to their beloved officer of science: Mr. Spock. In a final scene, Spock’s body is released from the starship to the bagpipes of “Amazing Grace.” He has died and has been laid in his tomb.

In the third film (the third of the eleven films in the franchise), the saddened crew return to Earth, only to realize that Bones, or Dr. McCoy, is going slightly crazy. It turns out that while Spock’s body was left on the new planet Genesis, all of his memories flooded into Bones. Bones is not himself, because Spock is occupying part of Bones’ mind.

Spock’s father, the respected Ambassador, requests that the Enterprise crew retrieve Spock’s body and bring it, along with Bones, to Vulcan. In the process, Spock’s memories will be reunited with his body. In order to achieve this, Kirk (William Shatnar) and the others must take the Enterprise without permission from the Federation. Their risk pays off, but not without encountering a Klingon Bird of Prey. The Klingon warrior Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) is on his own search; a search for the secret to Genesis. A secret that he believes will give him absolute power.

The crew of the Enterprise is still shaken by the sudden death of Spock. Mostly because he willingly gave his life to save them all.

Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the . . .
Kir: The needs of the few.
Spock: Or the one.

The Christ-figure imagery continues in Search for Spock. As a science team (the main scientist being David, Kirk’s son) searches for life on Genesis, they discover Spock’s burial coffin in the forested, garden-like part of the planet. They open it and only find his burial robe. The scientists eventually find a small, Vulcan boy in the forest. The Vulcan scientists are quick to realize that this child is Spock. “He’s not himself, but he lives.”

New life. Resurrection.

This theme of new life continues in the film, as Kirk comes to terms with the knowledge that Spock is worth the risk. “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many,” he says as he risks all to save Spock. Kirk embodies the shepherd in the parable that Jesus tells in Luke 15. The shepherd counts his sheep and notices that he only has 99 out of 100. He takes the chance of leaving the 99 behind to go in search of the 1. To the Holy One, every stray soul is worth searching for. And like Kirk’s, the search includes risks. Jesus’ parable of the shepherd in search of the lost sheep was a metaphor for what Jesus was doing at that moment to fulfill the Kingdom of God. In a post-resurrection context, we are the shepherd risking all we have to search for those who are lost.

Superman III (1983)

Posted on by
Reply

600full-superman-iii-posterRoger Ebert called Superman III a “cinematic comic book,” and he didn’t necessarily mean that in a good way. Richard Lester’s direction took the film series from complex, thoughtful elements to more campy, silly moments. Ebert is correct in his assessment: this third film is not nearly as good as the first two. On one hand, Superman III can stand alone and can be watched without the foundation of the first two films. Yet, it does nothing to support the story-line that the first two films worked so hard to develop. Perhaps this is the cost the studio had to pay when they shifted direction in the second film from Richard Donner to Richard Lester (who directed Superman III as well).

One of the areas in which there is a disconnect from the first two films and the third, is the complex relationship between Kent/Superman and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). Lois leaves for a vacation at the beginning of the film, and it is clear that Clark didn’t know anything about her plans. Clark, meanwhile, heads back home to Smallville for his high school reunion and to cover a story about small town life. It is at the reunion that he begins to spend time with Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole), his high school crush. And so begins a relationship between Clark and Lana that includes picnics.

Richard Pryor plays the brilliant, yet befuddled, Gus Gorman. At first, this may seem like a brilliant casting move in 1983. And it is. But Lester doesn’t seem to tap into the smartness of Pryor. Pryor seems limited and reserved. He pretends to be a liquor salesmen and General, which Pryor does well, but seems so out-of-character for Gus. When we first meet Gus, he is in the unemployment line to get his check for the week. But he is denied because the thirty-two weeks are up. When he asks someone for a light for his cigarette, the matchbook is from the company owned by Ross Webster (Robert Vaughan). He suddenly feels that he can be a computer programmer, even though he could not keep a job at a fast food restaurant and other such places. And he gets the job.

It is his job that introduces Gus’ secret gifts to Webster, who wants to use them to gain power and control of the earth’s resources. First, he sets his sights on coffee, and then on oil. There is only one problem: Superman (Christopher Reeve). Webster and his colleagues recall that there is one thing that will destroy Superman, kryptonite. That small, green rock that can bring the Man of Steel down. But they have no such rock. Webster has Gus use a weather satellite to scan kryptonite that is floating through space to see what it is made of. One of the elements is “Unknown.” Gus, worried to submit such a report to his boss, fills in “Tar” for “Unknown.”

The tar-laced kryptonite results in Superman becoming a big ole meanie. At first, it appears that Superman is being selfish, wanting to spend more time with Lana Lang, and arriving at an accident too late. “If only you had gotten here sooner,” the rescue workers say to him when he finally arrives. We watch as the transformation happens. Superman’s tidy hair and clean shaven look disappear. Even his uniform appears darker and dirtier than it usually does. It is obvious that even Superman is not exempt from the struggles of this world.

It gets so bad, that in one scene a crowd that includes young Ricky, Lana’s son, is gathering outside a bar, watching Superman get drunk and smash bottles with peanuts. Ricky is the only one who can see Superman beyond the meanie he is acting like. In a pivotal scene to the messy plot-line, Superman lands in a salvage yard. He begins to destroy junk, frustrated that he is behaving the way he is. In the midst of destroying junk, Clark Kent emerges from meanie Superman. The two then fight. The scene is filled with very little dialogue, which at first may seem odd, but is actually quite brilliant. It is not a fight between meanie Superman and good Superman, it is between meanie Superman and Clark Kent—the humanity of the Man of Steel.

The scene captures well the struggle that Paul describes in Romans, “I do the things I know I should not do, and I do not do the things that I know I should do.” Oftentimes when we struggle with making good choices or bad choices, we too struggle with ourselves. The scene depicts what many of us feel when this struggle takes place; the struggle between living in the Light and dwelling in the Darkness; the struggle between holiness and sin. The dark, dirty look the film gives meanie Superman reminds us of the ways in which sin leaves us dark and dirty, while the clean, bright Superman reminds us of how grace leaves our dark and dirtiness bright and clean.

Eventually Clark defeats meanie Superman, and things go back to normal. He works to fix all the destruction he made when he was meanie Superman. And he prevents the world from being destroyed and controlled by the Big Bad of this film: Ross Webster. In doing so, Superman fulfills his calling as the messiah from another world.

The Great Escape (1963)

Posted on by
Reply

the-great-escape-movie-poster-1963-1020415948It is 1943. Europe is now five years into what will be known as the  Second World War. Germany establishes a number of prison camps to house the growing number of war prisoners. At the same time, there is a growing number of escaped prisoners of war. Germany responds by opening its first maximum security prison camp. Built on the promises of no prisoner escaping, officials send the most known escape artists.

One of these prisoners if Captain Hilts (Steve McQueen), who is also known as “The Cooler King,” for all the time he spent in the solidarity confinement (the “cooler”) as punishment for escape attempts. Escape, in fact, is the first thing on Hilts’ mind when he arrives at the camp. He closely investigates the fence line and guard booths, searching for a blind spot.

And Hilts is not the only one with escape on the brain. There is a whole cast of characters who are longing for escape. They see is a part of their vocational duty as military men. Among them is Hendly (James Garner) who can unearth any item you need, Danny (Charles Bronson) who is the digging champ, and Sedgwick (James Coburn) the manufacturer.

The climate on the camp changes when Roger Bartlett (Richard Attenborough) arrives. Roger is a legend of sorts among the prisoners. They all see Roger as their leader, all expect Hilts. At least not at first. Roger empowers the men to use their skills in a huge exodus of the prisoners.

The film, released in 1963 before the country was engulfed by the conflict in Vietnam, is not like most war films. It is not as dark and gritty as most war films, like Apocalypse Now (1979) or Full Metal Jacket (1987), These post-Vietnam films, we could argue, were colored by the events that changed the world and how we viewed it.

The Great Escape has more of a light-hearted, comical tone to it for a war film. You chuckle a little bit when Hilts walks back to the cooler or when his prison-mates hand him his baseball and glove, the only two things that will accompany him. There are other similar moments, along with the kindness of the Nazis, which you do not expect. In fact, I wasn’t sure who the Nazis were when the film first started, because they were portrayed in a more kinder fashion.

World events like war remind us that we are all prisoners of sin. Our own personal sin, but also corporate, communal sin. The sins of establishment, institutions, governments, or cliques. These sins imprison us, with hopes to paralyze us. We long for escape and freedom. We work together to make escape and freedom a reality. It becomes our mission and purpose.

the-great-escape-richard-attenborough-steve-mcqueen-1963A handfull of the prisoners manage to escape through a tunnel they dug, through a hole they created, into the woods. Most of them were either captured again by the Nazis or killed. At first, it is striking to see this happen. Where is the happy ending to this true story? They worked together for a common goal and we rejoiced. They managed to trick the well-trained Nazi guards and we rejoiced. Some escaped and we rejoiced. But death? Recaptured? That wasn’t on the back of the Blu-ray cover!

And maybe that’s the reality. The return to sin, personal or corporate, is never foretold. We never see it coming, and yet it happens. Does it mean we should not attempt escape? Hilts and the others in The Great Escape would plead that we do not. We should not cease to escape from sin’s prison camps.

What I Learned From Roger Ebert

Posted on by
Reply

Thursdayebert_opt the world bid farewell to one of the greatest and most honored film critics: Roger Ebert. Ebert wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years and was on television for 31 years. It was some of those years on television with his on air partner Gene Siskel, that I learned who Roger Ebert was. He watched 100′s of films a year and wrote and talked about them with great passion and purpose.

It was then that I wanted to be Roger Ebert when I grew up.

Of course, God had other plans for my life, and I did not become Roger Ebert. But there was something about the way Ebert would talk about movies that made me want to explore these stories. Because that’s what film is – a form of storytelling. And Ebert knew what was a good story and what was not so good. And he had the courage to tell you so. And in many cases, he could do so with the simple turn of a thumb.

I have read his reviews for years online. And in way, it has taught me how to “read” a film. I learned from Ebert that a great storyteller makes use of everything he or she has at their disposal. From the actors to the cameras, from the lightening to the soundtrack. Everything has a voice in the story. Some films do this well, and others don’t.

The most interesting reviews of Ebert’s were often the ones for films that weren’t very good at storytelling – or simply sucked. Ebert had the courage to be completely honest, not just that the film didn’t work, but why. The plot made no sense. A camera angle was all wrong. The lighting communicated one thing, while the dialogue another. All of these things mattered to Ebert, and they should matter to us – the patrons of the cinema – as well.

For those films that received his coveted 3 1/2 or 4 stars, all the voices come together to give the story meaning. A deep, rich, truth that speaks it our lives. That, Ebert taught us, is what a great film does. It speaks truth into our lives. The film becomes more than just entertainment, to connects to some deep part of ourselves and causes us to think differently about ourselves and the world around us.

But most of all, I learned from Roger Ebert to keep going, no matter what life throws at you. After being diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, Ebert did not give up or stop doing what he did best. He continued to write film reviews, blog, and even wrote a cook book. And even still, when losing portions of his jaw after cancer surgeries, Ebert kept going. He always seemed to have a smile. He lived his life without fear of death. He did not live in fear, but in hope. He did not let something like fear, cancer, or anything else paralyze him from the vocation he was called to.

He wrote this in his memoir, Life Itself:

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

I still want to be Roger Ebert when I grow up.

Kon Ducki (1992)

Posted on by
Reply


plucky duck oneThis Tiny Toon Adventures short pairs Plucky Duck and Hamton J. Pig together as Plucky stars as Captain Pluck who vows to prove to the Explorer’s Club that when his ancestors migrated to Salinas, they did not fly, but sailed. He and his side-kick Koom-Bye-Ya, which is portrayed as Hamton J. Pig. And for comic relief, there is Sweetie Bird. Just as the original Looney Tunes shorts were often parodies of movies, Kon Ducki is a parody of the 1950 film Kon Tiki.

Captain Pluck and his small crew carry with them everything that his ancestors would have taken when migrating in 1977, complete with hamburger helper and cheese wiz. When things on the voyage get a little too shaking, in a classic Daffy Duck move, Plucky no longer wants to be the leader. He instead allows Hamton to be the leader. This way, if something goes wrong, it is Hamton’s fault, not Plucky’s. Instead, Hamton makes good decisions and realizes that he is good at being a leader. Plucky grabs his hat back from Hamton, the symbol of leadership, and resumes commands.

Plucky’s style of leadership tends to be consumed with opening a bottle of mango juice while the others do all the work. Hamton is more of a servant, doing what no one else is willing to do. When Hamton is given the chance to lead, he does so without cracking under the pressure, makes solid decisions, and in this short, even gains a profit.

duck dodgersWhat is great about this short is that Tiny Toon writers Sherri Stoner, Peter Hastings, and Stephen Hibbert capture the essence of Chuck Jones‘ Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones wrote in his book Chuck Amuck, “Daffy Duck is simply trying to get ahead; Porky in his adult life is simply a bemused spectator of the human scene.”  This was true in the endless shorts that the two characters were paired in, especially Jones’ Robin Hood Daffy, and Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century. Plucky and Hamton do the same here in this short. Plucky trying to prove himself as an explorer, and Hamton grateful for the life experience.

Chuck Jones has said that “Within all of us dwells a Daffy Duck.” And a Plucky Duck, and a Hamton J. Pig.  Which are you? Are you Plucky striving to get ahead and make a name for yourself? Or are you Hamton making the best of each moment and willingly serving others?

 

Old Glory (1939)

Posted on by
Reply

20121229-002243.jpgThis animated short was released in Los Angeles on July 1, 1939, just a few days before the celebration of the 4th of July. The animation is realist, which was director Chuck Jones’ style at this time of his career. It was often described as a Disney-like style, which is why the Studio asked him to work on this project. And with good reason. The studio did not want this short to be looney, but to be a message to the American people.

As Old Glory opens, a wide-eyed, child-like Porky Pig is learning the Pledge of Alliance. “I don’t see why I have to learn that,” he muses. Porky falls asleep there in the school yard, with his text book wide open. Uncle Sam, the iconic symbol of patriotism, appears to Porky in a dream. Uncle Sam moves Porky through early American history, from Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty”, to Paul Revere’s call to arms. As the short moves into the signing of the Constitution, there is an emphasis on freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of speech. Uncle Sam’s history lesson covers the American Revolutionary War to the expansion of the American old west. The short highlights two great Americans, George Washington who “laid the foundation of a great democracy ” and Abraham Lincoln who gave a “new birth of freedom.”

When Porky wakes up from his dream, he is convinced that learning the Pledge is important because it represents the great history of the country. He has been converted by Uncle Sam to the civil religion. But we’re not talking the Sarah Palin-moose-hunting-while-putting-on-lipstick-while-reciting-the-pledge kind of civil religion.

In 1939 lives were disrupted and families faced separation. Hitler was rising in power and influence in Germany. On September 1st of that year, Hitler’s troops conquered Poland in the Blitzkrieg, or “lightning war.” This would be the spark for the second World War, that would send many young men overseas. In the meantime, the United States was still suffering under the effects of the Great Depression. In 1939, close to 10 million people were unemployed.

Following this short, there would be dozens and dozens of shorts made by Warner Bros. and Disney to raise awareness and support for the government during war time. Why? To encourage unity among the country. The country needed to work together to rise out of the grips of the Great Depression and the country would need to do the same as it faced some of her greatest enemies.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Posted on by
Reply

In the third installment of the Terminator films, we find a John Connor (Nick Stahl) who is no longer 13, and “lives off the grid.”  John is a young adult living on the streets, no phone, no home, nothing. He is working in manual labor, recalling the past through a voice over narration. “They tried to kill me,” he says, “before I was born, and again when I was 13.”

“I feel the weight of the future,” John narrates at the beginning of the film. “So I keep running.” He is running from the vocation that has chosen him and from the terminators that may be coming to kill him. We see him next as he is breaking into a veterinarian’s office in the hopes of finding drugs. Evidence of how far he is willing to go to relieve some of the weight he is experiencing.

In the meantime, a T-X has been sent from the future. The T-X is even more deadly and destructive than the T1000 in T2. The T-X has arrived to kill not John Connor, but other resistance leaders of the future. SkyNet has taken a different approach. John Connor is no longer a priority, it is the other young adults who are his followers who will be leaders of the movement.

hollywoodjesus.com

One of these leaders is Kate Brewster played expectantly well by Claire Danes. Kate is getting married and has a somewhat estranged relationship her father. She is a vet, who answers an emergency call in the middle of the night. When she arrives at the clinic she finds a high John, whom she locks into a dog kennel. While attempting to calm a distressed cat owner, Kate comes face-to-face with the T-X.

The T-101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) arrives in his usual nude way. After gleaning clothes from a stripper at a ladies’ night bar, he sets out to find and rescue Kate from the T-X.  He also has to rescue John.

T-101: John Connor, it is time.

John: Are you here to kill me?

T-101: No. You must live.

John assumes his future-self sent the terminator as he did in the last film. But it was actually Kate who sent him. While running away from the T-X, John and Kate learn a lot about their future together from the T-101. Most surprisingly they learn that SkyNet still rises to power.

As Kate runs for her life, her General father is battling an unknown virus spreading quickly through the computers. They have a “secret weapon” they  have developed that could take care of this virus. Kate’s father, General Robert Brewster, is high up in the federal government who has the ability to tell the Pentagon no, they will not release SkyNet to deal with a major computer virus. His job is actually a cover up for a top-secret security work, which will become important when our three  heroes discover that a nuclear holocaust is upon them. Eventually, though, his hands are tied. SkyNet is release, however, instead of destroying the virus, it takes over all the machines.

While this is not the best of the Terminator films, it is still worth watching a few times. The CGI used in this film makes the first two look antique. And the film continues in developing John Connor as a Christ-figure.

“They tried to kill me before I was born.”

As John tries to explain the situation to Kate, he tells her, “Imagine that you were going to do something important with your life.” This line sums up John’s story perfectly.  His life is at stake because he is going to do something important with his life. It is his life will save humanity, in the fullness of time. In the first Terminator film, the objective was to kill Sarah Connor in order to ensure that John Connor, savior of the world, does not come to be.  In Matthew’s gospel, Mary and Joseph are informed by the wise men that King  Herod is planning to kill all the Jewish baby boys. King Herod wants to ensure that no future leader rises against his rule. Mary and Joseph along with the infant Jesus escape the genocide by fleeing into Egypt. At one point T-101 tells John that he will die, which is why Kate is the one who sent T-101 to the past. It alludes to the fact that John gives his own life to save that of others.

“It is your destiny.”

hollywoodjesus.com

John Connor has a purpose in life. A vocation that the whole world depends on, whether they know it or not. He has a hard time, however, accepting the fact that he will be kept in the equivalent of a “safe house.”  As the apocalypse of the computer-age gets underway, Robert Brewster tells Kate of a secret underground weapons control facility. She and John head there. These scenes were actually filmed on location at a decommissioned federal control center in West Virginia.

This underground center could symbolize the tomb of Jesus Christ. It will be after this tomb experience that a new life will be found. Not necessarily an easier one, which speaks volumes to the human condition. While new life is apart of the journey of humanity, it does not always mean life will be easier. Life is still hard. Life is still challenging. Life is still a battle between good and evil.

The greater lesson that John learns is that the person he is now, is not the person he will become. That is the good news about new life. We are becoming into someone new, transforming the old. He is becoming the one who will bear salvation for the world.

“You’re terminated.”

hollywoodjesus.com

The T-X is evil, no doubt about it. She is an agent of SkyNet, which is the big bad in the film. It is not a mistake that the enemy takes on the shape and appearance of a human. She looks like one of us. “And no wonder!” Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14, Common English Bible). The T-X can take on the appearance of others. At one point she becomes Kate in an attempt to trick Kate’s father. This enemy is deadly and determined to put an end to any possibility of salvation. She does not want there to be salvation. Her mission is to eliminate the possibility of hope.

This hope, however, is not lost. It is while John and Kate are in the underground control center, with computers that are thirty years old, that voices from across the country are heard. They found a radio range that SkyNet did not affect and they call out for anyone else who might be out there. And through these radio waves, the people hear the voice of John Connor, from the walls of a borrowed tomb, offering them hope in the midst of destruction and judgment.

Parental Guidance (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

parental-guidance-posterFirst Thoughts

Billy Crystal and Bette Midler star in the hilarious comedy about grandparents who have been asked to watch their grandchildren for a week. At first, I wasn’t too sure about this film. It was on my “wait-for-DVD” list. But, when the chance came to go a free preview screening, I thought, “Why not?” And I’m glad I did. The film was much better than I had anticipated.

This is a great family film. Crystal and Midler were a great pair as Artie and Diane. Their daughter, Alice (Marisa Tomei) and her husband Phil (Tom Everett Scott) need to go out of town as Phil accepts an award. The only way they can do it, if is Alice’s parents come to Atlanta for a week. The three children, Harper, Turner, and Barker are all great. They each have their own challenge – Harper is playing the violin without joy, Turner stutters, and Barker has an imaginary friend. All of these find some resolution at the end of a week with Artie and Diane.

The story, developed by Crystal, is a great story about being family. It is told through the comical eyes of Billy Crystal, complete with baseball metaphors and silly gags. Artie is a baseball game announcer. He (like his creator) loves the game. At the end of the season, however, Artie is fired. He is too old, and they want fresh blood. This is the first dilemma in this story.

Artie has a hard time dealing with being fired, because it means the end of his dream of announcing for the Giants. As he talks to Diane about it, the phone rings. It is Alice, she is in a bind, and is wondering if they would be interested in watching the children for a week. Alice is expecting them to say no. While Artie shakes his head no, Diane yells out, “Yes!” This opening scene shows us that there is something amiss between parents and grown up child. As the film unfolds, we begin to put all the pieces of this paper together.

And as we piece the story together, we realize the brilliance of releasing this movie on Christmas day. It is a story about family coming together, depsite their distance geographically and emotionally. There is no Christmas tree, no Christmas presents, no Christmas celebrations. Just everyday family stuff. And that is what’s remarkable about this film. It is not Christmas, but it feels like Christmas. Why? Because it is about family.

We all have some Crazy

There is no doubt that everyone who sees this film will connect with one of the family members. And we can all relate to Alice who tries to avoid letting her children around their crazy relatives. We learn that for Alice, the crazy are her parents. When Artie and Diane arrive at their home in Atlanta, they learn that they are the “other grandparents.” The ones that rarely see their grandchildren. Diane vows that by the end of the week, that is going to change.

As I screened this film in the movie theater, there was a lady a few seats down from me that kept making comments about Alice’s behavior. Her commentary on the film, was a connection. She related to Artie and Diane who aren’t as crazy as Alice makes them out to be, because Alice has some crazy in her, too. Alice has tried to raise her three children the exact opposite way that her parents raised her. They are not told “no,” they are told to consider the consequences. And despite the rolling of the eyes from Artie and Diane, it works for Alice and her family.

Alice is so worried about leaving her kids with her parents, that she almost never leaves to go be with Phil. Diane finally takes Alice that the hand and drives her to the airport. She tells Alice that she needs to be with her husband, because when your children grow up and leave, your  husband is all you got.

Transformation is Possible

Artie and Diane’s way of parenting is different from Alice and Phil’s. What makes the movie is watching Artie and Diane figure out how to build a relationship with their grandchildren. Yes, they make mistakes. Artie puts himself first, putting Barker in danger. Diane threatens Harper’s violin teacher. This is part of the remarkable quality of this film. Artie and Diane make a ton of mistakes. But mistakes and failures are not final. Transformation is possible.

After the mistakes, and after the clean up, there is time for coffee. Artie comes down into the kitchen and finds Alice drinking a cup of coffee (or herbal tea). He sits with her and the two of them have a great heart-to-heart about what happened. They also begin the hard work of mending their relationship.

Alice eventually comes to terms with the fact that her parents have a made a difference in her children’s lives. Harper finds her twelve-year voice and tells her mom she doesn’t want to audition for this other school. She likes the school she’s at. Barker’s imaginary friend tragically dies. As Phil points out to Alice, only Barker could make that happen. Artie tells Barker a number of times that Barker needs to be in control of his friend, not the other way around.

And the tearjerker of the film comes when Turner, who stutters and struggles to find his voice, walks up on stage to an empty microphone. He suddenly starts reciting the play by play of a baseball game that he and Artie have been listening to. Word for word, Turner recites the whole things without stuttering once. It is in this moment that Alice not only realizes but accepts what her dad has done for her family.

Overall, the film is a great family movie (grandchildren, take your grandparents). The story is not as disjointed as I feared it would be. The gags are funny, with clean language, and not all of the funny scenes are in the previews. The young actors are just as good as Crystal and Midler.

Director challenges Christian media to tell the Truth.

Posted on by
Reply

This article was originially written for and posted on Hollywood Jesus.com.

josh.org

josh.org

Undaunted is a docudrama based on the childhood and early adulthood of preacher and Christian author James McDowell. Writer and director Cris Krusen tells me that McDowell had contemplated such a project for many years, as he had been told by his staff that he needed to do a film on his early life. He didn’t take the idea seriously, however, until he saw a series of docudramas directed by Cristóbal Krusen. McDowell is quoted in an article published by Campus Crusade for Christ, “I never knew you could communicate so much emotion and so much substance in so little time as you can with a docudrama.”

The film developed in various stages. After Krusen and McDowell decided to work together, Krusen sat down to write the screenplay. Unfamiliar with McDowell’s story, Krusen gathered all the notes, articles, copies of speeches, and so on he could find, where McDowell might have shared his testimony, and pored over them. As he learned more about McDowell’s life, Krusen recalls his first impression. “This is a powerful story,” he remembers thinking, “with a marked conflict and a deeply moving resolution. And it’s true!”

With a script in hand, production of the film was stalled due to shortage of funds. After many months without progress on the project, Krusen suggested that they shoot the film in stages, starting first with all the scenes involving the real-life Josh. They shot those scenes in October 2010. “It seemed,” Krusen observed, “to provide a real impetus for raising the remainder of the budget.” They would then shoot most of the dramatizations in May 2011.

Krusen enjoyed working with McDowell. “It was great,” he says. McDowell “had many endearing qualities, chief among them being that he was open and approachable; he became ‘one of the guys’.” Krusen does point out that the report by Campus Crusade that McDowell’s story influenced him in his personal conversion is just incorrect. Krusen never knew about Josh McDowell until after he had been a Christian for three or four years.

Even so, Krusen was excited about working on this project because it provided an opportunity to explore, as he says, “the fragile world of a child haunted by family dysfunction and abuse, and plumbing the depths of a troubled father-son relationship which is ultimately transformed by the power of love and forgiveness.”

The docudrama presents to the viewer the chilling reality of McDowell’s childhood, which includes some challenging scenes. McDowell is abused by a caretaker and witnesses the abuse of his mother at the hands of his father. These scenes were not only challenging for the viewer, they presented their own challenges in filming.

The actress playing McDowell’s mother got delayed in reaching the shooting location, leaving Krusen having to rely a lot on the “power of suggestion.” “The beating took place in real dairy barn,” Krusen tells me, “and called for her rolling around in cow manure.” This presented another challenge. The actress was too big a woman to handle any physical stunts. “There was no way she could fall to the ground,” Krusen says. So, they had to imply a lot. Krusen says he hopes that the audience is so engaged the story that they do not notice the non-direct shots. As a member of the audience, I say job well done. The scene is a dramatic one, and the lack of direct shots of the mother being beaten does not take away from its emotion.

The other challenge in filming was the sexual abuse scene where young McDowell is abused by his caregiver. How do you portray something so horrific and offensive without being overly graphic? Krusen was adamant about one thing. “I was to not play this scene ‘safe.’ The audience,” he said, “must know that Young Josh is being molested.” Krusen again uses the power of suggestion to communicate the drama. As he says, “there is no room for doubt about what is taking place.”

The issue of abuse, both physical and sexual, is a huge one in our society. The effects it has on children are long standing. The hope is because McDowell is so open and vulnerable about the issue it could bring it to the forefront of the Church. “Unless you’re trying to raise children in a protective bubble,” Krusen points out, “issues like domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, sexual abuse, and so forth need to be confronted as real-life issues affecting real people every day.” Krusen goes on to say that the church and Christian media needs to not give audiences a “watered down” version of reality. “It seems,” he says, “that the highest goal for many Christian filmmakers these days is to produce ‘safe’ and ‘family-friendly’ programming. The first goal of a filmmaker should be to tell the truth and you are not telling the truth about evil by hiding the horror of sin and its aftermath.” Krusen does not advocate, however, the senseless graphic portrayal of true events. Instead, there is need for balance in storytelling, as long as the jeopardy, the trouble, the danger of something in the story is not removed. “If you’re trying to reach the lost,” he told me, “stop preaching to the choir.”

In the film, Young Josh turns away from God. As a college student he meets a group of students who are Christians. Even though he doesn’t believe in God, they do not beat him over the head with the Bible to get him to believe. They leave an open invitation to him. Over time, McDowell will have so many questions about faith and God, he travels to Europe to seek answers. I was extremely impressed with this aspect of McDowell’s life. Too many people will either accept blindly what others tell them, or they become so discouraged by the questions that they walk away from faith.

One of the hopes of the film is that people who are questioning their faith will inspire individuals and communities of faith to respond differently to doubting and questioning. Krusen hopes that young people will respond favorably to the film’s honesty. Overall, he hopes that people will catch a glimmer of God’s great love for them. As he says, “No one is beyond the pale; no one is removed from the grace of God.”

Krusen is currently developing an evangelistic film for the Balkans and is also preparing for the shooting of 33 Hope, a feature film based on the early life of the apostle Paul.

Melancholia (2011)

Posted on by
2

melancholia-movie-posterHow does the world end?  Cultures throughout time have been intrigued by this question, and by what events will take place.  We read our holy books to find answers, but only find ourselves asking more questions.  In Melancholia, writer-director Lars Von Trier explores and ponders this question.

The film’s prologue is a collection of images set to rich, beautiful music—the overture to Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde.  It’s almost as if Von Trier had closed his eyes while listening to this music and these are the images that flashed before his eyes.  But, the images—a moon rising; a bride running and being captured by branches; a bride floating in some body of water; a woman walking through the forest; a boy with a stick—are not that random. Von Trier, in the film’s beginnings, is using the tool of foreshadowing, giving the viewer hints to what is going to happen.  This prologue is an invitation.  The music chosen is enough to draw the viewer in.   Von Trier has set the stage for a beautiful, complex, and apocalyptic narrative.

The story starts with the younger of the two sisters, Justine.  We meet Justine and her groom Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) two hours late to their own reception.  As the party unfolds in all the traditional ways, Justine begins to disappear.  She explores the property outside, she puts her nephew to bed, she attempts to have a conversation with her anti-marriage mother. The whole time the camera jerks from one angle to the next, as if it is a home videorecording. The fun, light-hearted mood at the beginning of the film begins to slip away.

Every encounter Justine has during the scenes at the reception seems to be a tug of war. While Justine is slipping away, everyone else is desperately trying to pull her toward love, including her new husband Michael. It is here that we are surprised that Kristen Dunst was overlooked by the Academy Awards. This is by far the best role Dunst has portrayed yet. At the reception scenes, almost the first half of the film, we see in Dunst’s eyes life slowly being extinguished. We become more intrigued by Justine and what her story is. The greatest tug of war, and perhaps the more painful, is here in Justine. While her eyes testify to her slipping away, her face is trying to show happiness and joy. Dunst’s performance is gripping and, at the same time, heartbreaking as she makes Justine’s melancholia be very real for the viewer.

Throughout this first half of the film, Justine continues to be drawn to this new star she observes in the sky. The star is actually the planet Melancholia, larger than Earth and headed for collision with Earth. This is the hinge of the film. We have witnessed the emotional end of Justine. Now Von Trier turns his attention to the end of the world.

The second half of the film is devoted to Justine’s sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Claire commissions herself to take care of her now depressed sister.  Von Trier himself has struggled with depression and it only adds a level of intimacy that contributes to the cinematic excellence that is this film. Again, Dunst’s performance is riveting.

One of the most compelling scenes in this film is when Claire tries to help Justine take a bath. Justine is filled with so much agony that she can barely move. The emotional end (death) has left her physically weak. This scene is shot through a half-open door, somewhat symbolizing the state of humanity. Is the door opening? Or is the door closing? Either way, this scene causes you to catch your breath.

As Claire struggles to take care of her sister, she is wrought with anxiety that the mysterious planet Melancholia is going to bring destruction. She frantically searches the Internet for information. She goes into town and returns with a bottle of pills that she locks away.

During all of this anxiety, Claire’s husband John (exceptionally portrayed by Kiefer Sutherland) is calm and clear-headed. He is obsessed with watching and recording the planet’s progress. He insists the planet is just going to pass by, nothing is going to happen. The whole while, he includes their son Leo (Cameron Spurr) in this obsession.

While Claire becomes so overwhelmed by the planet’s movement, Justine provides perspective: “The earth is evil.  We don’t need to grieve for it. … Life is only on earth, and not for long.” And, it is this that is perhaps is the greatest message of this film.  If the earth as we know it is evil, we do not need to grieve for it. The old will pass away and the new will be created. The writer of 2 Peter tells us, “But according to his promise we are waiting for a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness is at home” (3:13).

Claire will get so overwhelmed that she frankly tries to get her and Leo into town, yet nothing seems to work right. Justine, calm and collected, takes Leo into the woods to find sticks to use to build a magic cave. She becomes the caregiver. She is not as worried about the unfolding events. She doesn’t see the planet collision as a bad thing. It is almost as if she has finally found comfort.

The film’s finale will leave you speechless. It is very appropriate for the end credits to begin scrolling in complete silence.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

If you have not seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, you should before you see Rises.  Nolan brilliantly weaves themes and characters from the first two films into Rises, much to the delight of Bat-fans. Rises picks up months after Dark Knight. The lie that Batman created for Gotham that Harvey Dent was the hero, despite his transformation into Two-Face. Thanks to the Dent Act, in memory of Harvey, the streets of Gotham have been swept clean of organized crime. For the first time in decades, the city knows peace. It is a city without the need for Batman. As such, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has secluded himself in the east wing of Wayne Manor.

With the city and Bruce Wayne vulnerable, Bane (Tom Hardy of Nolan’s Inception) enters the story. Bane is quite possibly the epitome of evil. His presence alone is intimidating due to the way he carries his physical bulk.  And never mind the Hannibal Lector-like mask he wears. He speaks in a calm and thoughtful manner, that reminds you of a great philosopher, yet he can break a neck in a single twist. A mercenary who speaks of revolution, Bane exploits the class warfare already in existence for his own means; for his own power.

As Bane and his goons wreak havoc in Gotham – which looks more and more like New York – Bruce must decide if he will rise from the self-inflicted daze to regain his vocation as the Batman. The question, however, shifts from, “Can he?” to “Should he?” The answer, as is true for most of Nolan’s films, is nowhere near simple. In a Jonah-in-the-whale kind of way, Bruce is imprisoned in Bane’s prison where he heals physically and emotionally. As Bruce catapults out of the prison’s hole, he claims his mission and sets out to wear the mask and cape.

In the midst of all of this, there is a mysterious woman in a cat costume.  Catwoman, or Selina Kyle is played by Anne Hathaway.  Hathaway handles the role of Catwoman in such a casual way that it makes us think, “Of course she’s the Catwoman.” Her morality is as flexible as her body, which is no wonder she and Batman seem to have a kinship.

The Dark Knight Rises does what every great film should do – spark conversation on the drive home. And I don’t mean conversations about how awesome the special effects were. I mean conversations about the themes and statements the film is saying about humanity.

Catwoman embodies one of the many themes in this film: grace. She is searching for ways to clear her slate, erase her record. She was made promises by Bane’s people that never came to fruition. Wayne/Batman offers her the same BEFORE she does anything. As a result, she offers assistance to help him find Bane.  But, it turns out to be a trap.  Even so, Wayne/Batman offers her grace and a chance to be a part of the redeeming of Gotham.

“Born in hell, forged from suffering, hardened by pain.” That line from the film is about Bane. It could easily be about Bruce Wayne as well. Both men have been forged from suffering and hardened by pain. The difference is how the men response to this tragedy/crisis/struggle. Like Jonah, Bane prefers vengeance to those who have done wrong. Like Jonah, Bruce Wayne rises above his own struggles to reclaim a commitment he has made to do good. And like Jonah, grace is the lesson learned. We rise because we have grace.

The film is the home to many more themes and theological ponderings. Too many to name and discuss here. One question remains, though, what will the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences do with the Batman?

To read more movie and television reviews, go to hollywoodjesus.com.