JOLLYBLOGGER

Hollywood is About to Ruin Another Classic

This is why we distrust Hollywood - they take classics, turn them into movies and completely butcher the story line.  They did it with Tolkien, Lewis, but now this takes the cake . . .

Horton Hears a Who as Theology

Who knew that "Horton Hears a Who" is a great theological treatise?  Jerry Dodson that's who, here's a snippet of Jerry's, from me to you on hearing who's (yeah, yeah, Dr. Seuss is under no threat from me).

One of the main reasons that we don’t hear Jesus or recognize him, as god or as risen, is that our worldview won’t let us see or hear him. We have ruled out belief in things that we can’t see, hear or touch—like Jesus. This is precisely the belief of the Kangaroo in Horton Hears a Who, the Dr. Seuss book and movie. HHAW is a story about Horton the elephant who discovers that there is an entire world of mites that live on a spec, a spec which is on a flower that he carries. On occasion, when the mites are very loud and Horton is very quiet, he can hear the mayor of the mites. Horton is opposed by the Kangaroo who is the king of the jungle. She says that it is impossible for there to be a world of mites on the spec because she can’t hear them, see them, or touch them. Kangaroo assumes that her senses provide her with all the information she needs in order to make sense of her world.

But she has a problem. Her individual experience and knowledge can not account for everything in the entire jungle.

A Trip to Narnia

Narnia is coming to a museum near you (well, depending on how you define the word "near"), courtesy of the Becker, Group, Walt Disney Motion Pictures and Walden Media. An exhibit called "The Chronicles of Narnia: International Museum Exhibition" will start touring in June of 2008 and will hit at least 10 cities around the world in 5 years. Here's a description:

The 10,000-square-foot educational exhibit will appear at internationally renowned museums and learning institutions in a minimum of 10 cities around the world over a five-year span, escorting guests of all ages on a tour of myth, magic and adventure that so embodied Lewis's fantasy world. Incorporating the movies' original props with newly created interactive elements, "The Chronicles of Narnia: International Museum Exhibition" will allow visitors to enter three-dimensional settings of both fantasy and reality, including a recreation of Lewis's personal study. Visitors will also be immersed in environments such as the famous attic and wardrobe that serve as the portal into the Narnia adventures. Once inside, guests will be transported into a wintry Narnia world complete with falling snow and cold wind, as seen in the series' first film, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The tour then continues through other spectacles from the series including the White Witch's ice palace, Cair Paravel, an actual trebuchet that was used as a catapulting weapon in medieval days, and additional sets and environments from the upcoming film, "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian."

Should We Listen to "Secular" Movie Critics

The hits just keep coming from my friends over at Christ and Pop Culture.  Alan Noble has a post today called Reviewing the Critics: Can We Trust Secular Film Critics? in which he says . . . awww, you need to read the post for yourself to see what he says. 

As much as I love Alan's stuff I feel the need to highlight a comment on the post from Jeffrey Overstreet that makes all kinds of sense and that we ought to think seriously about:

The American audience is famous for choosing cheap, trashy stuff. In food. In merchandise. And yes, in entertainment and art.

If we look to the box office and say, “Well, this is what people WANT,” and let that guide us, we’re only going to perpetuate a decline in artistic appreciation and understanding.

In the same way, if we point to McDonalds’ “a bazillion people served,” and let that be our guiding fact, we’re just going to ensure that Americans continue to eat garbage and become obese and unhealthy.

It’s our job to coax people toward what is better. And what is better is not necessarily what is *easy*, or what is “family-friendly,” or what the majority prefers. Even amongst Christians, what is popular is often mediocre, simplistic, and telling us what we *want* to hear rather than what we *need* to hear.

I prefer to learn from those who study hundreds of movies every year, and grow in my appreciation of artistic excellence and artful storytelling. Let truth and beauty, not the box office, lead. And truth and beauty are messy subjects, often troubling, and sometimes, yes… R-rated.

Read the rest of Jeffrey's comment here.

Should We Be Watching More Movies?

I've struck up a friendship with the folks over at Christ and Pop Culture (and recommend you do the same) and have been talking art and film.  Here's a quote I bet they would be interested in interacting with and I think it is one that the Christian community ought to consider.  This is from Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere (HT - Kottke) who suggests that there are usually 20-25 movies that are somewhere between excellent and good enough to watch and that will make us think later:

Movies are not supposed to be pills that you take to feel better. They're not travelling carnivals with elephants and jugglers. They're supposed to be aesthetic journeys and emotional hikes that get us in touch with things that too many of us tend to push away (or anesthetize ourselves from) in our day to day. They're supposed to be compressions and condensations that create indelible moments, insights and excavations into our collective soul. We're only here for 80 or 90 years, we need to figure some stuff out before we pass on, and good movies are part of the learning-and-realizing process.

That portion of the Christian subculture in which I grew up spiritually would take umbrage at such a thought.  For them, the Christian response to movies was suspicion at best, avoidance in most cases, resistance often, and resentment always at how movies were corrupting our morals. 

I grew up (spiritually) with a pretty narrow view of film, and I can see some of my own biography in some parts of the Christian subculture today. Movies were mostly about amusement/entertainment and thus to be indulged in rarely as they were basically used for escapism.  They were also morally black and white - either good or bad, but mostly bad.  Thus, there weren't a lot of movies that were acceptable, and even the acceptable ones should only be indulged in rarely. 

Of course that was the party line which few people followed.  Pretty much all Christians watched pretty much all of the popular movies and just didn't mention it around the more spiritual people. 

I'm happy to have found a broader Christian community that takes a more nuanced view of film, but even in this broader community I can't think of anyone I know who would say we should watch 20-25 of the kinds of movies that Wells suggests.  Many would say, yeah they may create indelible moments, but that's the problem - they are indelible in a bad way - nothing good can come out of Nazareth or Hollywood.  But I think (considering the discussion on this post) we ought to consider how we might positively engage with film.   On that post Ben Bartlett summarizes Leland Ryken who says:

As he tells it, a piece of art (even a movie) is pointing to a particular "snapshot" of truth... not all truth, just a picture of one aspect of it.

So why not use movies as part of our own "learning-and-realizing process?"

Philippians 4:8 and Evaluating Art

Philippians 4:8 says this:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things. (NETBible).

This is a verse which can and should guide us in the evaluation of art - literature, film, visual - and all of life for that matter.

Alan Noble has an interesting post up over at Christ and Pop Culture wherein he suggests that some of our well-known Christian film critics lift one element of that verse out and make it the litmus test for films, while ignoring others.  He says that these folks tend to be very conscious to evaluate film on the basis of purity, but in regards to truth, respect, just-ness, loveliness and commendability - well, not so much.

I'll just come right out and say that I think he is spot on, but I want to point out one particular point he makes that challenges my own thinking.  I think he makes the point well, but I don't know if I'm 100% sold yet and would love it if we could get some discussion going on this.

I have come to evaluate movies in terms of their redemptive value - good movies have redemptive themes and I look for those themes.  He also mentions the common Christian view that good should triumph over evil - if a movie portrays this then it is better. 

But Alan doesn't think this is required for film to be considered good or for it to conform to Biblical principles. 

But this raises the questions, in what way is the theme of redemption the only judge of aesthetic excellence and should we try to convince filmmakers that these kinds of films ought to be made because they are profitable?

To answer the first question we should look to the Old Testament. Even a cursory reading of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes makes evident a common truth in the Old Testament: the world is unjust. The unrighteous rule, gain wealth, and go unpunished, while the righteous are abused and go unavenged. The Bible gives us no hope for true justice in this life. To demand that all films show good triumphing over evil, or justice over injustice is to go beyond the Bible and lie about the fundamental nature of the world. When Baehr argues that a movie is only good if it properly contains these themes, he either shows an ignorance of the Old Testament, or he is advocating art as pure escapism. While watching a hero win out against incredible odds is uplifting, to claim that any other plot structure is unbiblical and unworthy of praise is nonsense. It is precisely a world where the unjust currently go unpunished that Christ came to save: a fallen world.

The Dangers of Film

Here's some follow on thoughts to yesterday's post where I picked a fight with Neil Postman.  Postman championed the superiority of writing based cultures to image based cultures.  While I used to be whole-heartedly Postmanian on this, as I mentioned yesterday, I think some of his arguments break down and now I'm not so sure.

Still, by this I don't mean to say that the visual is superior to the graphic and I came across a good post today at Christ and Pop Culture on the dangers of film.  Rich Clark offers the following dangers of film:

• Film can use sentimentalism to mislead.
• Film can discourage critical thinking
• Film offers no opportunities for discussion
• Film can tempt us to sin without warning
• Film often leaves us trapped in a giant waste of time.

Rich is not against film, prior to this  wrote a post called "In Praise of Film."  So, the post I referenced here is him giving both sides of the story and I post these things to give equal time to some concerns I think Postman would share.

While we are on the subject of movies, Tim Challies reviews Brian Godawa's book "Hollywood Worldviews" and I guess you could say he gives it one and half thumbs up. Here's my own review of the book. I would probably give it one and three quarters thumbs up - I'm a little more liberal than Tim on the sex, violence and profanity issue, but I still think the issues Tim raises in this regard are on point and are a struggle for me.  Still, I found Godawa's take on the issues very helpful.  Even if you disagree with Godawa on that matter I consider Hollywood Worldviews to be pretty much essential reading for anyone interested in movies.
 

Gregg Easterbrook from ESPN Takes Down the Golden Compass

I love reading a good sports columnist and I have enjoyed reading Gregg Easterbrook from ESPN a number of times.  I guess I'm just going to have to make sure I faithfully read all of his columns now as he seems to segue from sports to philosophy to religion to cinema and so on.  Who knew that Immanuel Kant was interested in football, and "claimed the analytic-synthetic distinction obviates a priori reasoning on the blitz."  I didn't but Gregg sure did. 

Not only that, but you have to check out the way he takes on Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, along with Phillip Pullman, Hollywood and the Golden Compass book/movie franchise in this column. 

HT- Further Up & Further In.

I've included an excerpt after the jump.

Around the Jollysphere 12-13-07

I'm going to try to dust off an old thing I used to do - a link list called "Around the Jollysphere."  I used to do this and then let it fall by the wayside.  I have accumulated quite a lot of links in my del.ici.ous folders and saved rss feeds so I think I can make a go of this.  As I do this I'll try to separate it into categories and share with you some of the best things I have read.  I'm not going to have set categories, but you can expect that each time I do this I'll have some theology/biblical/Christian living links, cultural stuff, and a bit of sports stuff (especially during football season).  I also will share some stuff on diet and fitness as this something I have been very consumed with over the last few months and have quite a bit of material on.  So, without further ado (or is it adieu?) . . .

Theological Goodness

John Barlow has a good quote from Samuel Johnson.  It wasn't written in a theological context but is too good not to mention here:

"Hume and other skeptical innovators are vain men and will gratify themselves at any expense. Truth will not afford sufficient food to their vanity, so they have betaken themselves to error: Truth, Sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull."

Glenn Lucke gets caught quoting the Bible on the the gospel and the kingdom.  Some of the brethren are troubled that some of the brethren seem to be defining the gospel in terms of the Kingdom of God.  So, Glenn does the unthinkable and searches the Scriptures on the matter.  Be sure and read the post and then look at a few other comments that Glenn made in response to me.  I understand the fear - some have used the "gospel of the kingdom" as an excuse to abandon the historical (biblical) teachings on justification.  But an errant understanding of the relationship of gospel and kingdom does not mean we abandon that which the Scripture plainly teaches - the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom

And of course, if we were still allowed to quote Tim Keller, we might find some wisdom.  But since we can't do that I'll quote Tony Stiff who quotes you-know-who as follows: 

“In general, I don’t think we’ve done a good job at developing ways of communicating the gospel that include both salvation from wrath by propitiation and the restoration of all things. Today, writing accessible presentations of the gospel should not be the work of marketers but the work of our best theologians.” Tim Keller, The Gospel and the Supremacy of Christ in a Postmoderd World (pg. 111)

 

This is what gets to me - Christians just love to fight over things that shouldn't be fought over.  The "gospel is the kingdom" guys want to deny or downplay propitiation in favor of the redemption of all things.  The propitiation guys are afraid that the restoration guys are going to lose propitiation so they don't want to talk about it.  The gospel is both - let's run with it.

And here's a good quote from Michael Bird that sets a correct trajectory for discussing the gospel:

"When Christians speak of salvation, they telll a story. It is a story that stretches from even before the creation of the world to its final redemption, when the plan of salvation conceived by God from eternity is to come to fulfillment. While God's dealings of old with God's chosen people, Israel, play an important role in this story, ultimately it revolves around Jesus Christ and his death on the cross."

David Brondos, Fortress Introduction to Salvation and the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007), p.1.

Al Mohler Nails it on "The Golden Compass"

I've thought about writing some on "The Golden Compass" (book here, movie here) by Phillip Pullman.  Fortunately, Al Mohler has saved me the trouble. 

I can't think of a better short introduction to the issues surrounding this than Mohler's December 4 commentary - The Golden Compass -- A Briefing for Concerned Christians.  Mohler clearly lays out Pullman's anti-God agenda and the dangers it poses.  Yet, he praises Pullman for his writing and the makers of the movie for their production values. He made one comment to the effect that the production values were better than Lord of the Rings.

What is good is that he doesn't encourage Christians to boycott the movie, but to be informed and respond appropriately, and I would even say winsomely.  This is good - I'm already hearing calls to boycott the movie and I think that is a mistake. In fact, I joined a Facebook group called "What if we didn't boycott The Golden Compass."  I realize that there are children who shouldn't see the movie, but my take is that if a children's story can rock the faith of an older teenager or adult, you didn't have much of a faith to begin with.  Not saying you should go see the movie, but as I mentioned in my C. S. Lewis post a few days ago - we ought to have a faith that is confident and not threatened by false religions, or anti-religion - the Christian faith ought to be able to stand in the face of that kind of stuff.