My thoughts on The Golden Compass
I had never heard of The Golden Compass until four weeks ago when several people sent me email warnings about its atheistic message (Narnia for atheists!). Since then, this fantasy novel and movie have received lots of press. I decided to read the books (The Golden Compass is the first of a trilogy) and see the film. Here are some observations:
- Philip Pullman is a talented writer. He has created a compelling story and a fascinating fantasy universe (universes actually - the trilogy is built on the idea of multiple parallel universes).
- The movie and the first book are not very controversial. The series doesn’t get too theological until book two, and the movie tries its best to make the villains generic.
- Pullman really hates religion. (You might say that Jesus did too). The villainous church in the books is all about power, control, and persecution, which certainly are some of our more noteworthy sins. It would be hard to exaggerate Philip Pullman’s hostility toward the church and toward God. His heroes are on a quest to destroy both. But something is missing…
- There is no Jesus in Pullman’s church. The church he describes isn’t the one I know. His church has no good news, no grace, no Jesus or Mother Teresa or Shane Claiborne. No one is drilling wells for the thirsty, feeding the hungry, or setting up medical clinics in poor countries. Pullman’s church is a caricature.
- The movie is pretty average. Too many details are crammed into too tight a time frame and some key events from the book are rearranged. The lead actress is good and the CGI is great. Sam Elliott always makes me want to trim my mustache.
- Pullman gets quite preachy in the later books, which probably hurts his ability to persuade. He hates The Chronicles of Narnia, but he mimics C. S. Lewis in that both authors put forth a blatant world view in their books. Pullman dislikes The Lord of the Rings too, but both Gandalf and Saruman made it into The Golden Compass movie.
Film critic Jeffery Overstreet has a thorough and informative article on The Golden Compass at his Looking Closer blog.
Ghosts of Cité Soleil
I just read about a documentary from Haiti called Ghosts of Cité Soleil, an account of the lives of two brothers and gang leaders in “the most dangerous place on earth” and the poorest part of the poorest country in the western hemisphere. Ghosts is dated 2006 but seems to be heading for release in the UK (and hopefully the US) in July. On our missions trips to Haiti, we caught glimpses of Cité Soleil as we drove through Port au Prince, but for the most part, our Haitian experiences were in the countryside.
Check out Ghosts at Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb.
Evan help us
Not since The Passion have I seen such an intense marketing campaign aimed at Christians as I’ve seen the past few weeks for Evan Almighty.
I first saw the trailer for Evan’s predecessor Bruce Almighty as I sat waiting for one of the Lord of the Rings movies. It struck me as blasphemous at the time, but our youth minister wondered if maybe it might have some good lessons about God’s rule and human limits. Boy, was he right. Bruce Almighty has become a favorite of mine. Though flawed, it’s funny and makes a good statement about sacrificial love.
But I’m surprised at the push for Evan Almighty. First, I got a pastors’ invite to attend a screening in Atlanta several weeks ago (I didn’t go). Then I received an email ad last week asking me to download free clips from the movie to use as sermon illustrations. And Christianity Today Movies has been writing articles on Evan all week, leading up to their review, as well as running paid ads.
According to CT’s review, Evan is a cleaned-up family film (especially compared to Bruce) with a positive message or two. I’ll probably see it, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I like it and recommend it to friends.
But why on earth would I want to help sell tickets in church?
Jonestown
Just before Thanksgiving during my freshman year in high school, Jim Jones and his People’s Temple cult entered the national consciousness. It was on November 18, 1978 that 909 members of People’s Temple died in Guyana, Africa. Most of them committed suicide. A significant number were murdered. 276 were children.
Last night, Cindy and I watched the new Jonestown documentary on PBS. I was hoping to gain new insight into this mysterious tragedy. What was it that drew people to Jim Jones? What explains the fanatical devotion to this cause, demonstrated by the willingness of so many to relocate to Africa to live in his community? Most of all, why would hundreds of people surrender their own lives at his command, with (apparently) nothing to gain by it?
The documentary begins with the voice of a former Temple member saying that no one intentionally joins a cult that they think will harm them; rather, people join movements they believe in. But it’s hard to see from this film what Jim Jones offered people to believe in. The documentary traces Jones’ life: misfit kid, Pentecostal revival preacher, pioneer in racial integration (from the start he insisted that all races worship together), and founder of a community that moved from Indiana to California to Guyana. Obviously Jones had something beyond charisma. This documentary reports on it, but doesn’t capture it. We hear of Jones the powerful preacher, charlatan, sexual deviant and totalitarian dictator. We get snippets of his beliefs, which seem to have grown out of Biblical Christianity before metastasizing into Jones’ own dogma. We see the evidence of his power to move people (Jones and his group played a huge role in the San Fransisco mayoral election) but not the power itself.
In short, the documentary fails to show us why Jim Jones was so powerful. Maybe the filmmakers missed the mark. Or maybe it’s because nearly all the true believers died on 11.18.78.
Actually, I saw something else at work in Jim Jones. Before Judas betrayed Jesus, it says that Satan entered him. I have always believed (and this is my opinion) that when Satan was finished using Judas, he abandoned him. And when I see the photos of 909 bodies lying around that forsaken compound, I see the same evil force at work. Jim Jones had a power from beyond this world, and the goal of that dark force is always to steal, kill and destroy.
Ken Burns and “The War”
I just marked Sunday night, September 23 on my calendar. That’s when a new documentary by Ken Burns begins to air on PBS. This one, called The War, is a fifteen-hour look at WW2 from ground level, the perspective of the soldiers and their families back home.
In an interview on Fresh Air, Burns said that he decided to ignore the more typical focus of WW2 documentaries - on celebrity generals, strategies, maps, time-tables, weapons…and Hitler - to concentrate on the battle experiences of those who fought. Clint Eastwood recently covered similar ground in Flags of our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima (from the Japanese perspective). Burns focuses exclusively on the soldiers and families from four American towns. From the previews, it sounds great.
I’m a big fan of Ken Burns, though I haven’t actually seen his masterwork The Civil War. It was Baseball, his 1994 documentary of eighteen-hours (and nine innings) that won me over.
Marketing to the church: Rocky Balboa
This is a dated topic, but I write it now because yesterday someone gave me the poster you see here from the Rocky Balboa media push for churches. I’m grateful to the person who put it on my desk, and I plan to put it up. But the campaign itself, to promote Rocky Balboa to churches, seems odd.
I saw the movie, and commented on it here. It was good. Of course, I felt like I had seen it before, since it was the same movie as as the previous ones. But there wasn’t anything especially Christian about it, and the “good fight” Paul speaks of (quoted on the poster) certainly wasn’t a sixty-year-old man vs. the heavyweight champ.
Sylvester Stallone learned from Mel Gibson the value of connecting with pastors, although Stallone’s marketing push wasn’t nearly as far-reaching as Gibson’s, nor was it as successful. (BTW, when is some Hollywood director going to invite ME to a pre-screening?)
NPR covered the church marketing strategy here, and Christianity Today Movies abetted the project to some degree too.
I have no problem with Bible-based discussions on movies. I just see this as another warning to be careful. It IS flattering to be noticed by Hollywood. But it would be easy to be used.
P. S. - Just today, Christianity Today posted an article about movies and church marketing citing the dangers.
Do you rent widescreen or fullscreen?
Up until a year ago, whenever we rented a DVD, I’d always grab the full screen version. I figured the wide screen image would be too small on our TV. Then one night, on the DVD extras for the movie The Interpreter, I saw a feature by director Sidney Pollack on why wide screen is better. He convinced me for life in about five minutes. I won’t even consider renting the full screen film anymore.
OK, so this isn’t the most important post I’ve ever written. Nevertheless, I consider myself a minor wide screen evangelist. Most movies are filmed and shown in theaters at a 16:9 width-to-height ratio. To fit on a standard 4:3 TV screen, the movie is edited by a process called pan and scan in which somebody chooses a 4:3 rectangle from each shot and crops the rest out. Since the director is responsible for laying out each shot, Pollack said that pan and scan is in effect redirecting the movie. He showed 4:3 cropped scenes from The Interpreter and said: “I didn’t direct that.”
Turner Classic Movies occasionally runs a short feature on wide screen vs. full screen. Check it out the next time you run across it, or just watch this short demo to see what I’m talking about.
The Nativity Story
Cindy and I finally saw The Nativity Story last night. What a perfect way to close out Christmas Eve. I was impressed.
The Nativity Story captures several themes that Christians have heard developed repeatedly in generations of sermons - the fact that Joseph and Mary belonged to the “working poor”, that the pregnancy probably caused something of a scandal, and that the Romans were oppressive rulers. And the film does a great job expanding on Matthew’s statement that Joseph was a righteous man. As the story progresses, Joseph shows himself to be a humble, strong, servant-like husband, willing to do everything he can to care for his wife and her child. Mary moves from an attitude of resignation over their arranged marriage to a state of genuine love for Joseph.
The Nativity Story plays essentially by The Book, a fact that some critics have found disappointing but which many Christians will appreciate. All the elements from the Gospel accounts are there, and the supernatural element is in no way downplayed or called into question. (The Magi arrive at the same time as the shepherds, which almost certainly did not happen, but have you ever seen a Nativity pageant played any other way?) Sam Van Hallgren at Filmspotting criticized the film for being no more than a professional version of the same kind of Nativity play one can see at any church this time of year. Actually, he’s right. But the difference the pros make is refreshing. Even Van Hallgren says that if you’re looking for a straight telling of the story from the Bible, this is it. I say “Amen” to that, and I mean it as a recommendation.
Someone with young children asked me if The Nativity Story (rated PG) was kid-friendly. It isn’t, not for young kids anyway. The brutality of Roman rule, Herod’s massacre of the innocents, and the realistic portrayals of the labor pains of Elizabeth and Mary may disturb those under 10. But for older folks, The Nativity Story is a realistic, well-crafted portrayal of the events leading to the Incarnation.
The Nativity Story
This is the weekend that the next big Bible film opens in theaters. The Nativity Story stars sixteen-year-old Australian actress Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary. Castle-Hughes starred as a Maori girl-who-would-be-tribal-chief in the wonderful Whale Rider a few years ago. And fans of 24 will recognize the actress who plays Elizabeth - Iranian-born Shohreh Aghdashloo, who played the awesomely wicked Mom-next-door/terrorist in season four.
David Neff at Christianity Today Movies gives the film a positive review for its realistic rendering of first-century peasant life and for developing the idea, only briefly mentioned in Scripture, that Joseph was a just and compassionate man.
I’m glad to say that, unlike The Passion, this film hasn’t been aggressively marketed to churches as “the greatest evangelistic opportunity since the feeding of the 5,000!” It’s just a movie, after all. Hopefully it’s a good one. I look forward to seeing it.
The Ground Truth
My wife and I recently watched The Ground Truth, a great documentary on the Iraq war, particularly its effect on the women and men who fight it. This 78-minute gem, directed by Patricia Foulkrod is pro-troops, anti-war and non-political in the sense that (as far as I remember) no politicians or political parties are named. Instead, the focus is on how these young people are drawn into the military with sanitized sales-pitches, trained to become killers, unleashed into an impossible situation, then dumped back into society. The Ground Truth looks unflinchingly at the horrors of civilian casualties, and anyone who remembers the horrendous moral dilemmas faced by the troops in Vietnam will find this all very familiar.
