So I was watching The Simpsons tonight when I heard an incredibly profound statement. Actually, the entire episode was very profound, but this statement just leaped out at me and I thought it worth sharing:
No little girl can be happy unless she has faith in her father.
That is a simple, yet deeply true statement. And in it is the key to so many insecurities and struggles of women and girls today. Take a minute and just ponder that. That's all.
In the midst of one of my favorite Will Ferrel scenes, this homage to Shakespeare appears. I just had to share. Of course you must read with the "overly dramatic Shakespeare voice."
Where art thou, dog?
Thy canine lover.
Where is your hot breath upon the nape of my neck?
We shall form a bond of brotherhood: man and beast.
You shall lick my face, and I shall lick your snout.
**Note: some mild, non-disruptive spoilers. They won't disturb your film watching experience.**
So this past week I went to see No Country for Old Men, and I was completely blown away. I do love a Western and a suspenseful thriller, and this film was a nice blending of both. Right up front I should say that this is a brutal, harsh, bloody movie. Its story is a reflection of the country in which it is set. But it is completely brilliant. The film is not as much of a western in the epic sense as, say, 3.10 to Yuma or High Noon mostly because it is more of a tragedy than an epic; nevertheless, it is a true western in every other way.
There are three characters who anchor this tale; three characters are this tale.
The tone is set and held by the narrator, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by a weighty Tommy Lee Jones. He is unruffled, calculating and no-nonsense. Little startles him in this film. I expect this is because of all he has seen. He knows the nature of evil, but becomes overwhelmed by its persistence and senselessness. Bell's opening monologue leads us gently into the brutal story by mentioning the sheriffs of the past. He notes that some of the "old timers" didn't even carry sidearms, and that one can't help but compare oneself to the "old timers" and wonder how one measures up. Throughout the movie, Bell becomes the center of gravity around which the chaotic violence and suspense circles. He is not merely the compass for the story itself, but also for the morality expressed in the story. He not only sees with great clarity the division between good and evil, but he also understands the overwhelming strength that evil brings to bear as we go along. Hence, while the "old timers" didn't all wear sidearms, Bell most certainly does. He laments the senseless evil that he sees in his county now: particularly the drug running and the deaths that occur due to the drug running. Perhaps the most senseless of all evil stories is the focus of this movie.
The protagonist of the story is Llewelyn Moss, played by Josh Brolin. Moss is a Vietnam vet who is as hard-edged and rough as the country to which he has returned. He is a cowboy: a self-reliant loner who is both independent and loyal to his young wife, he doesn't seek out the action that finds him. Moss is out hunting when he stumbles across the scene that will change his life: a drug deal gone bad. Yet, it isn't the decision to take the $2 million left behind that is the truly pivotal one. The decision that seals his destiny is the one he makes because he can't sleep that night. He decides to go back to take water to the one dealer left alive and gravely wounded. This decision spurs the turn of the rest of the movie. This decision was inevitable for the cowboy, however. His innate sense of justice and rightness cannot be denied. There can be no other outcome to his struggle. He is a man of character, and throughout the film he strives to maintain that character while doing what he believe best for his wife first, and then himself.
Opposite to Moss we find the antagonist, Anton Chigurh, played masterfully by Javier Bardem. Chirgurh is the ultimate villain: exact, purposeful, conscienceless. Chigurh is possibly the simplest and most complex of the three characters at the same time. He appears to have no motivation for killing other than the principle of fulfilling some sort of twisted duty, and displays no remorse for the killings. Except once, it seems. Chigurh seems able to belay his conscience by laying off his non-contract killings on a coin. By commanding his potential victims to call it, he shifts the accountability for the deaths to the victims. Chigurh has no place for mercy; it is not part of his world. He is a frightening villain; one that shakes Sheriff Bell to his core. Relentless and dark, Chigurh himself is a cowboy, not the anti-cowboy one might expect. He is the Dark Cowboy, the cowboy led solely by his evil nature, applying his principle to the darkness.
The story itself is stunning, real and complex. Throughout we are subtly and blatantly reminded that no matter the plan, fate intrudes unexpectedly; that nothing is certain. Everything that happens shoves that home to the viewer. Even the ending shocks the viewer with its harsh, unrelenting loyalty to this theme. If we are warned that one mistake can destroy a life, the irony of this tale is that the truly destructive mistakes are made by others than those who end up destroyed. The decisions and mistakes of this movie are small, almost momentary, but their effects are shattering. There is no moment of redemption in this Western; no showdown between the good cowboy and the evil one. That would be inconsistent with the tragedy of this tale. This truly is a country that, as one character puts it, wears a man down. This character reminds Bell that what he's fighting--the evil, the uncertainty--is nothing new, perhaps he just has nothing left for the fight, anymore. Bell admits that he has always hoped for some deus-ex-machina appearance of God, and has found only disappointment. He understands God's apparent absence, though, since he admits that if he were God, he would stay away from a man like himself. It is an interesting admission of sin and failure in the eyes of Who God is. Yet, despite this apparent desolation, Bell's final monologue is perhaps more hope-filled than his character realizes. It hints that though his soul cannot find true rest due to the absence of justice in this life, there will be rest farther on. We are left with thoughts of the very nature of evil, of the fight against it here, of the forms in which it presents itself, and of the eventual end thereof.
This is not a film that wraps things up with a neat bow. It is not a film that answers questions so much as raises them for the audience to ponder. Bell's presence infuses us with a sense of what ought to be while contrasting that with what is in front of us. He himself leaves us with the sense that this world can never be right; that eventually even the whitest of White Hats will grow weary of the battle against evil; that true rest will not be found while we tread this Country. This film is not for the faint of heart: as I mentioned, it is bloody, brutal, violent and dark. It is a work of art that seeks to examine the nature of humanity. It raises all the right questions, and wisely, leaves us without any easy answers.
So today I was listening to K-Love on the way to work. Yes, I listen to K-Love on the way to school. I like to sing to wake up, and they have the least intrusive morning show. About halfway there, though the "news" comes on. I put that in quotations because it isn't really news, not headline news anyway. It is, rather, "positive stories." Needless to say, that is typically when I slide in a Caedmon's Call or Third Day CD. Today, though I was thinking through all the things I needed to do before classes started, and I just listened through the "positive stories." The final part was a quick review by the spokesman of a certai family group of what's opening at the theatres this weekend. His statement was basically the following: Don't go see Beowulf. It is filled with violence. It's an appalling amount of violence. Go see Bella, instead....Or another choice is A Bee Movie. I didn't particularly enjoy it, but it does have potential to be a nice family-friendly movie.
Hm. So basically, avoid one movie merely because it is violent, regardless of its artistic or ultimate moral merit. Instead, go see a movie that the reviewer found to be barely mediocre merely because it's basically "family-friendly." Interesting. Bella and A Bee Movie may be well-crafted films, yet I find it incredibly sad that the average Christian seeking entertainment guidance by this particular group--and by extension K-Love--is encouraged toward certain movies based entirely upon said movies' relative innocuousness. Yet innocuousness does not encourage excellence; instead, it breeds mediocrity. Last time I checked, God wasn't looking for mediocre followers, innocuous disciples. Of course, last time I checked, the Bible was neither innocuous nor "family-friendly." If it were a movie, you should definitely not take your kids to see it.
So this afternoon I was cleaning my room (that sounds so high school, ha ha!), and Dante's Peak was playing on t.v. I had never watched it before. I purposefully avoided the Year of the Natural Disaster Movie. Maybe it was more like two years. You remember: the succession of movies about meteorites destroying the earth, or tornadoes beyond anything we've every seen, or volocanoes destroying the earth. You remember. But today I watched it. It was on. I was cleaning. It sucked me in to find out what happens. And hey, it has Pierce Brosnan and Linda Hamilton. But I did learn a few things from my viewing. Some of them I had learned from other action movies in the past and were just reinforced by watching Dante's Peak. Others, though, were new information for me. I thought it advisable for anyone who might find themselves in danger of imminent death-by-volcanoe.
1. Volcanoes are dangerous.
2. Volcanoe experts are more perceptive if a loved one died in a volcanoe emergency.
3. Hot springs near a dormant volcanoe can kill you.
4. When a volcanoe is about to erupt, it will give plants and animals mysterious illnesses.
5. The mayor of a small, struggling town never listens to dire warnings of disaster,
6. Dire warnings of disaster always threaten small, struggling towns.
7. Volcanologists are dashing and single-mother Mayors will fall for them.
8. When a volcanoe is about to erupt, it will make the tap water brown.
9. When a volcanoe is about to erupt, you should go inspect the town water supply and see if it is also brown. Also, if it smells like sulphur, run!
10. You should always drive a big truck; that way, when you are evacuating, you can drive through everyone else.
11. Single mothers always have spunky children.
12. Judicious application of the brake and gas is all you need to avoid a crashing helicopter.
13. Don't fly a helicopter through falling ash.
14. A disaster is a good time to reconcile with your estranged ex-mother-in-law.
15. Spunky children already know how to drive a car, just not what all the buttons do.
16. When you see a lava flow coming, run to water.
17. Volcanic activity turns lakes into acid, so always have an extra motor. And drive fast.
18. Do not jump out of the boat and try to make it to land. Especially when you've watched the metal boat melting underneath you. You will die.
19. Dying moments are cathartic--be sure to confess your foolishness and apologize if you are the one dying. If you are not the one dying, be sure to protest said confession and confess your own foolishness.
20. When you need it, you always find a large, heavy duty truck to use for escaping a volcanic eruption.
21. Dashing volanologists always know how to hot-wire a vehicle.
22. You can drive across a lava flow as long as you speed up enough, and you are driving aforesaid heavy duty truck.
23. A lava flow will cause your tires to catch on fire, but when you drive across the ash on the other side, they will extinguish.
24. You can drive on the crumpled rims of aforesaid melted tires for a long time. As long as you need to, really.
25. Disaster scientists are always conveniently working on a new, extra-special gadget that will turn out to be a life-saver.
26. When escaping a pyroclastic cloud, there will always be a convenient mineshaft into which you can drive.
27. Promises of a quiet house in Florida filled with good food and a launching point for fishing trips will quiet all fears of small children and single mothers.
28. If you leave aforementioned extra-special gadget in the heavy duty truck when you escape the cave in at the entrance of the mineshaft, you will have to go back for it risking death by rock-crushing.
29. If the extra-special gadget fails to turn on, highly educated volcanologists solve that problem by kicking it.
30. After being rescued from a cave in, the only emergency care you will need is a blanket.
There you go: all you need to survive an imminent volcanic eruption. I hope you never need it, but just in case....
I just finished watching the premiere episode of K*Ville. I like it.
For those of you that watch t.v., but haven't seen the ads for this show, it follows several police officers in New Orleans 2 years after Katrina--now. Anthony Anderson is the lead character, and he does a fabulous job. Being that my parents were born and raised in New Orleans, that my grandmother still lives there, and that I have spent a considerable portion of my life there, I am typically cautious when I see a movie or a television show that will be set there. Generally, the problem is that no one bothers to find out what New Orleanians are actually like. Thus, they end up with ridiculous Cajun or Southern Belle accents that have absolutely no relation to what the actual residents sound like. Also, due to its appeal as a tourist destination, films and shows set there too often end up campy tourist romps through the city in a bizarre attempt to appeal to the kitshy in us all. Needless to say, I was a little nervous despite the promising ad campaign.
I am very pleased with what this show actually is. Anderson's character lives in the Upper 9th Ward (my dad's cousin lives in that area) which is struggling back, albeit with an awkward limp. The show doesn't try to avoid the problems besetting the limping city, but equally portrays the small triumphs that are bringing hope back to this venerable city. The show is filmed in N.O., which was really nice. It's good to see the actual city rather than some cobbled together shots and then interior filming. It also really shows the viewers what the city is like, where it is right now. The characters are sympathetic and real, flawed yet noble. The dialogue and dialects are incredibly accurate to the city. If you want to know what New Orleanians are like, this show will help you along. There were a few moments of camp; but then, what show doesn't fall into camp at times. The filmography is very interesting--the typical cop show gives us more footage than we need: the cop chase always includes the officers getting into the car and speeding off; K*Ville skips that part. It works very well--the shot cuts from the officers running in the chase straight to the car chase. This serves to heighten the action while not detracting from the story in the least. It was a very interesting watch.
All in all, I am so far very pleased with this show. I think all of my readers should give it a watch--it's a well-crafted show that offers an informative glimpse into this great city who needs our support to walk again. A final, added bonus: on the breaks from filming, the cast and crew volunteer with Habitat for Humanity helping to rebuild the city. That right there is worth helping this show succeed.
So, the Undersecretary General of the UN thinks that Cuba is an example for the world. Probably because she thinks she'd be in the upper tier.
So tell me, should the world have this healthcare?
or this freedom?
or this "sustainable development"?
or this life?
I think the world could do without this shared experience. Most Cubans would probably agree.
I suppose I am beating a dead horse slightly by posting this entry. Oh well. Deal with it. :)
There was a significant amount of controversy whn Don Imus did what he does best: making raunchy, offensive statements attacking those who deserve none of his acid. I'm not going to enter into a dialogue about whether he deserved to be fired, or whether his remarks were any worse than so-and-so's remarks/pictures/music, or whether the Revs had any business stating their minds when they never speak up about the way the music industry constantly participates in the denigration of black society. Those are all interesting topics, but they are not what I want to write about today.
Every so often, I check up on what's going on at Soulation. I have been impressed at the topics being addressed by Dale and Jonalyn Fincher--topics that are important to this generation, but are often off the radar of the average church. This time when I checked in I found a very interesting editorial that Jonalyn wrote for the Zondervan bog. Her perspective on the issue is refreshing as it speaks to way Imus attacked the feminine identity of these players, a deeper, and more central identity than their racial identity in so many ways. I think it's worth a read.
I know, I know. It's so long. I wanted to wait and see if I had more job news before posting again. I have an interview with the board on Tuesday night. I'm a little nervous. Mr. Dolan really thinks I can handle myself, though; that I'm fully prepared to answer the questions they'll have. He really wants to hire me. And that is fabulous. It's always good when your future principal is batting for you.
On a very different note, I saw a commercial last night that just floored me. I was so impressed by the subtlety with which an honorable goal was introduced. And I was even more blown away by the fact that it's a car commercial. It is the lates commercial for Saturn--a plug for their 5 hybrid models. This post isn't about hybrid cars, however. Perhaps I'll post some thoughts about that at a later date, perhaps not. This is about something very different and surprising in that ad. The ad centers around the word "Rethink," and features a series of different photographic shots: the first is presented with the word "Rethink" superimposed on the screen; then a second, opposing, shot is shown with "Rethink" followed by whatever concept you are to rethink superimposed. For example: picture of bodybuilder, superimposed "Rethink;" picture of Lance Armstrong winning, superimposed "Rethink strength." Even were it not for the opening shot, I find the commercial very artistically interesting. And the music is good. :)
But the opening two shots make this commercial. Shot one: the right fist of a black man, each finger holding a large, gaudy ring. Shot two: the left fist of a smiling black man, the third finger holding a wedding band. "Rethink bling." Now that's a commercial. It almost made me want to buy a Saturn.
If you haven't had the pleasure of seeing this add, here's the link:
saturn ad
So The Academy and Raul Castro agree on something:
Gore climate change Oscar entry has Cuba's vote
Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:36 AM IST
By Marc Frank
HAVANA (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore doesn't know if his climate change documentary will win an Oscar on Sunday night -- but he has Cuba's vote.
Sunday's Union of Young Communist's newspaper reported acting Cuban President Raul Castro "recognized the effort of the former vice president to denounce" global warming during a two-hour meeting with youth leaders on Friday.
Cuba's official and only television media showed Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" on prime time this month and an update by Gore, giving the one-time presidential contender more positive publicity than any other U.S. leader in decades.
"Truth," a big-screen adaptation of Gore's slideshow lecture calling for urgent action to curb man-made greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming, has been nominated for an Academy Award as a best documentary feature.
The nomination technically goes to the film's director and its producers, but Gore is the star and narrator of the film, which also profiles his efforts to raise environmental awareness. The book version of "An Inconvenient Truth" was published last year as a follow-up to his 1992 bestseller "Earth in the Balance."
Official praise of former U.S. presidents and vice presidents is rare in Cuba, which has considered itself at war with the United States since a trade embargo and other sanctions were slapped on the Caribbean island soon after Fidel Castro came to power in a 1959 revolution.
Defense Minister Raul Castro is second in the Cuban hierarchy after his older brother, Fidel Castro, 80, who temporarily ceded power to his brother in July.
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Interesting. Another reason I won't be watching it anytime soon. Sorry, Al.
Why do faery tales appeal to us? Why do adults still remain fascinated by the stories they were told as children? Why do we continue to revisit them, both in their original forms and in amended and modernized forms?
Knowing many of those who read this blog personally, I feel fairly safe in hazarding, like several notable writers of both the present and past, that they appeal to us because the shadow the Great Story. They haunt us because they remind us that we are part of a Faery Tale ourselves. They offer us reminders of the hope before us. They pierce us with the possibilities that Hope is and the Hope finds us when we need it. But for all their hope, their joy, their haunting, faery tales are so often filled with a brutal edge. But then, life itself is filled with many brutal edges.
Why do ponder this? Because I am so impressed with a new faery tale.
I recently read, for the first time in my life (yes, I'm a bad scholar), Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Frankly, it's one of the best written novels I've ever read. I've read Orwell. I certainly see the dangers of the world of which he warns us. I can certainly see the areas where it can, and probably is, creeping toward us in the sensuous guise of socialsim/communism. I've read Bradbury. I can see the impending dangers of the world he fears where reading is dangerous because we no longer understand it, and we fear the seditious properties of what we don't understand. Huxley seems to wrap it all into a package that ominously reflects social trends that creep toward us even now: the loss of the value of an individual, the constant business and consumer glut, the uselessness of monogamous love and family. It's book well worth the read if you haven't read it yet.
And now, for the purpose of intriguing you, some quotations:
Strange to think that even in Our Ford's day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks adn perhaps a bit of netting. Imaging the folloy of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption. (31)
Feeling lurks in that interval of time between desire and its consumation. (44)
Our ancestors were so stupid and short-sighted that when the first reformers came along an offered to deliver them from those horrible emotions, they wouldn't have anything to do with them. (45)
It's not enough for the phrases to be good; what you make with them ought to be good too. (69)
...after all, what is an individual?....We can make a new one with the greatest ease--as many as we like. Unorthodoxy threatens more than the life of a mere individual; it strikes at Society itself. Yes, at Society itself. (148)
Have I piqued your interest? I hope so.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.
Yesterday, on my way to work, I was listening to K-LOVE. (Yes, I listen to K-LOVE on the way to work. "Positive" and "encouraging" is good in the morning for me; plus, I would rather hear music than vapid attempts at witty banter all morning. Ok, all 30 minutes.) Anyway, back to my story. So, they played a Selah cover of Josh Groban's "You Raise Me Up." Yes. Now, don't get me wrong--it sounded really good. It wasn't a cheesy, dippy cover. Selah has some talent, and their voices worked very well for the song. Here's my issue: they sang it to the exact, same musical track. I kid you not. It was like they just deleted Groban's voice and put their voices in instead. I was fairly baffled. The only difference between to two songs is the performer. So apparently, any old vague song can be put on K-LOVE, but only if a "Christian" artist is singing it. Don't take me the wrong way on this--I'm not saying that's what I think. Frankly, I think they should have played the Josh Groban version. What's wrong with his? Is it somehow more spiritual if we know for sure that the performer is talking about God in the song because they have the label "Christian" next to their group name? I just found it really bizarre and kind of lame. What do you think?
Although I must admit to a certain liking for hip-hop and rap music, I don't often listen to it as so much of it objectifies women (even songs by female artist, unfortunately) and glorifies the idea that love=sex. Thus, I enjoy it when a rap performer rises above the usual stories being told and tells a story of worth. Tonight on SNL Ludacris performed this song. It made my heart ache. And I'm glad to see him tackle tough topics in a way that shows compassion for women. I wish more of the artists and musicians labelled Christian were as willing to show the rawness of life, rather than so often sounding like a Dayspring card. Anyway.
"Runaway Love"
(feat. Mary J. Blige)
[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
Runaway love
[Verse 1 - Ludacris]
Now little lisa is only 9 years old
Shes tryin to figure out why the world is so cold
Why shes all all alone and they never met her family
Mamas always gone and she never met her daddy
Part of her is missin and nobody will listenin
Mama is on drugs gettin high up in the kitchen
Bringin home men at different hours of the night
Startin with laughs--usually endin in a fight
Sneak into her room while her mamas knocked out
Tryin to have his way and little lisa says 'ouch'
She tries to resist but then all he does is beat her
Tries to tell her mom but her mama don't believe her
Lisa is stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothin else to do but some get some clothes and pack
She says shes bout to run away and never come back.
[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love [x8]
[Verse 2 - Ludacris]
Little nicole is only 10 years old
Shes steady tryin to figure why the world is so cold
Why shes not pretty and nobody seems to like her
Alcoholic step dad always wanna strike her
Yells and abuses, leaves her with some bruises
Teachers ask questions she makin up excuses
Bleedin on the inside, cryin on the out
Its only one girl really knows what she about
Her name is lil stacy and they become friends
Promise that they always be tight til the end
Until one day lil stacy gets shot
A drive by bullet went stray up on her block
Now nicole stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothin else to do but some get some clothes and pack
She says shes bout to run away and never come back.
[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love [x8]
[Verse 3 - Ludacris]
Little erica is eleven years old
Shes steady tryin to figure why the world is so cold
So she pops x to get rid of all the pain
Cause shes havin sex with a boy whos sixteen
Emotions run deep and she thinks shes in love
So theres no protection hes usin no glove
Never thinkin bout the consequences of her actions
Livin for today and not tomorrows satisfaction
The days go by and her belly gets big
The father bails out he aint ready for a kid
Knowin her mama will blow it all outta proportion
Plus she lives poor so no money for abortion
Erica is stuck up in the world on her own
Forced to think that hell is a place called home
Nothin else to do but get her clothes and pack
She say shes about to run away and never come back.
[Hook - Mary J. Blige]
Runaway love [repeats]
Tonight I went to see The Centenary College Choir. One of my former students sings in it. If any of you ever have a chance to see this choir perform, take it. they were phenominal, and the repetoire was delightful. On song, in particular, was truly striking: Tenebrae factae sunt by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina. The melody was haunting and filled with glory, and the subject poignant--the sufferings of Christ at the ninth hour. Fabulous.
I was once again struck by the amazing beauty of music and of the human voice. A particular combination of notes, sometimes even a single note, has the power to fill your body and bring tears--a sense of wonder--to your eyes. I think there is little in this world that can touch our souls the way music touches us. The capabilities of human kind leave me at a loss for words. Yes, we are capable of creating great destruction, but we are also so capable of creating immense beauty. In this incredibly vast universe, God saw fit to put us here and give us such gifts of beauty. It's humbling.
I'm curious--what are some moments when you have been filled by music?
"Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together." Eugene Ionesco
While I was staying with my dear friend, Kelly, we watched Crash. Everyone should watch this movie. I wish I could show it to all of my students. I'm not here to give a critique of this movie so much as to reflect a little and apply to some recent healining events.
This movie made my soul ache. The kind of ache that has trouble finding words, and then when the words do come out, they just don't seem right. Yes, the movie is about racism; but, it's about so much more than that. It's about being human. And being angry. As I watched, I found myself wondering how I would react to the situations the characters found themselves in. Of course, I want to say that I would be a better person, that I would be more patient, that I would understand the other side of the picture. But would I? I found myself asking the questions again in the media frenzy over Mel Gibsons embarrasing outburst. What would I have done? If I were a big movie star with too much alcohol in my brain being arrested for DUI, what would I do? I have to admit that I would probably be victim to an angry outburst as well. Perhaps my verbal attack would have been differently aimed, but there would certainly have been an attack. I suppose I am admitting that we all have the potential to give in to racism, but I think so much more we all have the potential to intentially wound someone. Deep inside, we like hurting other people. It is our inherent sin nature. I've seen students do it before--forcibly wound another student, a student they actually like as a person, because they are angry with them at the moment. We are all human, filled with anguish, and in our darkest moments, we prey on that. Don't think I'm excusing anyone's selfish, hurtful, even racist behavior (though you'd be hardpressed to convince me that Gibson's actions prove he's a hardened anti_Semite). What I am saying is that we are all susceptible, especially when we aren't getting our own way. In an article in USA Today, Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the Nation Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, is quoted as saying that Gibson's slurs are "almost irrelevant. the more important point is: What do we learn about ourselves from incidents like this? The real issue is (what do we say) in our conversations with our children, in our boardrooms, when things get testy in our own lives, when we get pulled over by the cops. Can (Gibson's remarks) invite us all into greater awareness of our behavior when we are out of control in our own lives."
The most important thing about Gibson's foolishness isn't what it might say about him, it's what it should make us notice about ourselves. The greatest aspect of Crash isn't what it has to say about racism, it's what it has to say about humanity.
Recently I read a very interesting article ("Pope Dan I") examining The DaVinci Code. It isn't the first article I've read examining TDC, but was certainly the most intriguing. The author, Michael Novak, makes a very clear case that the new religion that Dan Brown is attempting to replace Christianity with is eseentialy degrading and oppresive to women. Though some might debate that Brown has as his goal the establishment of a new religion, the fact remains that in attacking the founding principles of Chrisitanity, he is, in fact, substituting different ideas--a different religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that TDC is a work of fiction, and that what little historical speculation is "documented" was discredited long ago; but, I also know that people who are busy rejecting the Truth will latch onto whatever seems mystical and spiritual while not expecting responsibility. On the surface, Brown's paganesque "sacred fememinine" fits the mold of post modernistic spirituality. It appears to elevate and celebrate the feminine in the search for some secret knowledge--to create a mystical role for the female in the realm of the spiritual. In reality, however, it destroys the beauty of Woman. It degrades individual women in favour of teh mystical whole of the femal vessel.
According to Brown's religion, ritualistic sex is an intrinsic part of teh spiritual because only in the union with teh mysitcal cessevl can the man truly come to see God. AT first glance, it seems as though this creates an amazing role for a woman--she, through sex, becomes the path for a man to know God more intimately, to receive the secret knowledge. The problem, though, as Novak aptly points out, is that by focusing on this mystical role of vessel, the man is in actuality merely using the woman for his own ends. There is no respect for the individual woman as an object of pursuit, as a person of merit. Thus sex, under the guise of a mystical path to god, becomes merely a means to exploit women, placating their abused sense of self with a title of use--the "sacred feminine." Consider the following excerpts from Novaks article:
The trick to this gnostic form of love is to think of it as a spiritual love, not for this particular woman but for the eternal goddess within, the mystery of femaleness. But of course this gnosticism leads to the grossest, most impersonal forms of sex, and a frantic, oft-repeated search for escape, in order to keep pursuing the eternally elusive Grail. Here is Professor Langdon before a coed class at Harvard, addressing the men: “The next time you find yourself [having sex] with a woman, look in your heart and see if you cannot approach sex as a mystical, spiritual act. Challenge yourself to find that spark of divinity that man can only achieve through union with the sacred feminine.” Brown reports that “the women smiled knowingly, nodding.”
But the romantic/erotic and the gnostic do not bear up well under long experience. They rely too much on delusions. They demean real, in-the-flesh, individual women, with all their common sense, faults, particular wants and tastes, and wonderful angularity. They ignore unique persons, in all their imperfection. In all their suffering.
The popularity of these stories [tragic medieval romances] demonstrates that the age-old myth of impossible love, the idealization of woman (the sacred feminine), the longing for self-dissolution, and poignant and passionate desire — all the equipment of a new outburst of the ancient gnosis — have an unrelenting power to touch the human soul. Men do constantly seek the Grail, the chalice which is Woman (not necessarily this particular woman whom I know, but the divine woman somewhere beyond, the unearthly woman, the goddess beyond anyone who is merely flesh). This is not falling in love with an individual woman (or man), but falling in love with love.
Brown's paganesque theories are not respectful of women, yet how many modern women will be allured to the idea of the "sacred feminine" idea. Brown seems intent on plucking the most rose-coloured ideas from paganism while actively ignoring the reality of paganisms abuse of women--the use of women as batering items, the reality of the harem, etc. Despite Brown's apparent contemp for historical Judaism and Christianity, Judeo-Christianity provides the only religious basis for honoring and respecting individual women.
It was Judaism that first insisted on a strict monogamy, as Christianity would later.
It is not an accident that Judaism and Christianity, with their wise sense of limits and restraints, and their insistence upon monogamy, taught whole centuries of males to treat women with individual dignity, in the mutual choice of love for one another, forever, sacramentally, each to honor, protect, and cherish the other. In no other civilization, of any other religion or secular persuasion, in any other era, have women been treated as individual persons, made in the image of God, called to reflect, choose, and act with creativity.
Unfortunately, most of the contemporary church is unequipped to combat these ideas. We have no discussion of the true, biblical role of sex. We have no discussion or understanding of the true mystique of masculine and feminine and beauty of the individual woman. Christianity is about the individual, it is about the value of one person in the eyes of God. Paganism and distorted mysticism are not. The individual is nothing in comparison to the mystical role, particularly in the case of women. She is merely a tool--a tool of spirituality, a tool of fertility. IN order to combat this error, Christians neet to know what Christ teaches about women, about sex. It seems though, that we are afraid. It is easier to attack Brown's ridiculous ideas about Christ and history than to teach congregations the Truth about the more subtler points of his work.
Perhaps this discrepancy is why we cannot combat the degreaded sexuality of our day--we don't know what the alternative is really about.
For the article...
I don't often post politically oriented blogs--they tend to get complicated--however, when something I read really strikes me, I like to point others in that direction. Such is the case with this article. You don't have to agree with all of the President's actions or policies to appreciate what the authoress has to say. Her points are sharp and well aimed. At any rate, take a minute of your day to read it. It's worth the reflection.
I adore movies that center around books. I do. One of the reasons I love You've Got Mail so much is that Pride and Prejudice is so central to the plot. Not that I don't like movies that aren't about books, but there is something...deeper about the ones that do. For me, anyway. Perhaps it is the reminder that some things are universal. This movie, The Lake House, features another Jane Austen title, Persuasion. It works beautifully. This movie is beautiful. The copy of Persuasion is beautiful. The characters are beautiful. Well, you get the picture. There are so many things to say about this movie, but so few the I can actually get away with without ruining th eexperience for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. I'll just point out a few things that are insightful, true, enlightening:
Movies made/set in Chicago are fabulous. This movie shows the beauty and complexity of Chicago very nicely--even I, who have only been there once (thanks K&J for that one time), felt...there.
Movies that feature fabulous architecture are works of art just for that. The Lake House itself is amazing, as are the many Chicago buildings highlighted in the movie.
Movies with clips of Alfred Hitchcock films show wonderful insight by the director. In this case, it is Notorious.
Movies that make the audience applaud at the end are worth seeing twice. I'm going again next weekend.
I know that there are some scientific holes in this movie, but I think that's fitting. After all, science cannot unravel love, so why should a movie about love be perfect science. What is so lovely about this movie is the sparse technology that interferes, depite the contemporary time period. It reminds us that simplicity can still be found, and that love can sometimes best germinate in that simplicity. It also reminds us to embrace impossibility because sometimes we are surprised by the probablity of beauty and "rightness" within the most impossible of circumstances. What is most important is allowing ourselves to take the risk. This movie is about so many things, but I think what it most conveys is that true reward--true faery tales--never comes without being willing to risk. And, after all, isn't that what the best books try to show us?
When I was a little girl--I guess around 6, because my parents were re-married by then--my dad read The Chronicles of Narnia to me at bedtimes. I adored them. Up until my teen years, we read every night he was home, travelling through all kinds of books: Little House on the Prarie, The Screwtape Letters, even The Law by Bastiat. Of all the books we read my favourite all my life has been The Chronicles. Since that time, I've read them quite a few more times. (Yes, I am one of those that reads books more than one time.) It was so amazing to think of another world at your fingertips so full of beauty and adventure--and you could never quite tell when you might stumble upon it. Of course, Lewis touches deep spiritual and metaphysical chords in his series as well, but ultimately, the stories are about beautiful adventures. I was in love with that world.
I just got back from seeing The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe with my sister. Of course, this isn't the first one of its kind--there is an animated one, and a fairly decent version released by BBC a number of years ago--I've seen the others. They're alright. This movie is what was playing in my head when I read the books. I can't even think of a better compliment to give. I was a child again, discovering Narnia all over. I was a little afraid at one point that they'd skipped the most amazing line--"He's not a tame lion, you know." "No. But He's good."--but lo and behold, there it was. I even truly enjoyed the addition at the beginning. To a generation so removed from WWII, it added a good deal of context to the story (and reminded me again what troopers the British are). The cast was excellent. Unlike the BBC girl, this Lucy doesn't whine. You fall in love with her. Peter is the resolute oldest son trying to take the place of his father. Susan captured well the young girl trying to be reasonable and important, but still really a girl. And Edmund. Watching him, you can really see him drawn into the net by his petulance--at each step becoming more angry and ill-tempered. His redemption is a relief because you do like him despite the attitudinal mistakes he makes. This movie is everything you want it to be, and very well. It is wonderful. Now I think I'll go read the book again.
This is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. The cinematography is phenomenal. Of course, even beautiful cinematography can’t give you a truly beautiful movie (The Horse Whisperer. . . .). The characters, story and direction of this are also stunning.
The story takes place during the time of the 5 kingdoms in China. One king, the ruler of the Qin empire (later to be emperor Ying Zheng), has a vision to unify China by conquering the other kingdoms. This, of course, engenders rage, bitterness and vengeance against him as the other kingdoms don’t necessarily wish to be unified. In particular are the three most famous assassins from the Zhao kingdom: Sky, Broken Sword and Flying Snow. As the story begins, we meet a prefect called Nameless who has apparently defeated the three assassins and is traveling to an audience with the king of Qin. When he arrives at the palace, the king asks him to recount his story, finding it hard to believe that a mere prefect could have defeated three well-studied assassins. The story progresses in flashbacks, each flashback beautifully distinguished by a different color scheme: lighting, costumes and set pieces. Each story enlightening the audience with more and more of the truth.
Although the central theme of the story concerns the unification of China (thus not truly universal), the ideas of willingness to die for a belief, of sacrificing for the good of all, of a true warrior knowing the ultimate goal is to be able to lay down the sword are touching and applicable to all. And the sheer beauty of the film is overwhelming. The fight sequences are precise, tao-filled and beautifully choreagraphed. It is a very Eastern film, so be prepared for that. (non suspension-of-disbelief-ers may not really appreciate it) Although it is reminiscent of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it is also very different. You know what, just go see it.
So, I saw the new [u]Star Wars[/u] movie. Wow. It was phenominal. I really enjoyed it. The story was impressive. Even though you knew what Anakin would eventually decide, his path is surprising. You can't help hoping he will, somehow, stick with what he knows is right. But he doesn't . He wants to control fate too badly. His love has a defect: the inabilty to let go of what he loves. An all too human defect, I'm afraid. But previous loss has made him afraid to lose what he loves--possessive to an extreme that leads him to betray what is right for the promise of playing God to keep what he loves. Such a poignant reminded that all we have on earth is temporary, and we should be prepared to relinquish it at the proper times. This is exponentially true for Christians. Watching Anakin's descent into darkness was almost more than I could take--it was so dark and seemingly irrevocable. Yet, even near the end, when Obi-wan confronts him, he could have walked away from the darkness--such a picture of the availabilty of redemption. But he refuses, instead wallowing in his hatred and bitterness and false paranoia--such a picture of the sinful nature of man. It is a wrenching movie. The parallel between Padme's death and Anakin's "death"/return as Vader is beautiful and heartbreaking. I was so emotionally exhausted by the movie. I also had to come home and watch "Episode 4" (as it is now known) to renew my heart. I will say the end of the movie does give the glimmer of hope that is brought to life in the next movie. And it does so flawlessly. I was astounded and washed away by this movie. It should be seen. I will also say that the movie not only presents an introspective examination that is sharp and skilled, it also reminds us what liberty truly is worth. And that peace at any price is oppression. A reminder much needed in an age when we are told to keep to ourselves and mind our own business; that maintaining peace is the ultimate goal we should have, justice and right be damned. Though I would not go so far (as Padme almost does) as to say that all war is a failure of diplomacy, I think the movie makes a strong case for listening as well as for not sacrificing liberty and justice on the altar of peace. It's good stuff.
Not that I went into this movie with really high expectations, and it isn’t really that my expectations were let down—it’s more that I would never have anticipated the type of let down I received. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I saw this movie, and I’ll get to why I’m glad and what I really enjoyed. I’ll start with the bad, though.
First off, I should have paid more attention to the director. Why it slipped my mind, I don’t know. Perhaps I was so entranced by the idea of a movie about Alexander that I failed to notice the name “Oliver Stone” by the word “director.” Had I noticed that, I think I would have had a more aware mindset when I went into the movie. [For those of you reading this who are too young to recognize the name (he has been out of the limelight as director lately), Oliver Stone worked as director for films like JFK, Nixon, Born on the Fourth of July¸ and Platoon—all movies with blatant agendas.] Thus, I would have been expecting some agenda to filter. Frankly, although Stone is excellent at pushing actors to excellence in performance, he fails as a director because he misrepresents to truth to create the image he desires. In this movie, Stone obviously wishes to leave the impression that Alexander had, in some sense, a homosexual relationship with his friend, Hephaistion. What I find so angering about this isn’t really the suggestion of the homosexuality, it is Stone’s deliberate use of his knowledge of the modern American audience to create said suggestions. He knows full well that the deep nature of ancient friendships, forged in life and battle, is out of the experiential realm of most modern American. He also knows that modern American men do not generally profess their love for each other because our society, inundated with “gay” awareness, will assume hidden homosexuality. The fact is he created a beautiful picture of love other than Eros; a picture of true friendship forged by Alexander’s accountability to a friend who refused to just “let him win.” Stone, however, pushed that picture over the top, playing on his audience’s ignorance and tendency to equate “love” with romance and sex. That, to me, is inexcusable. A director has a responsibility to communicate to his audience. Stone, instead, fails to communicate to them, knowingly leaving them with a certain impression. Now, he does not ever forcibly state that impression, knowing that history will not back him up. In fact, in the movie Aristotle to decries homosexual relations as excess; a scene in which some Greek men are obviously taking advantage of a young man shows Alexander’s disgust with the homosexual act; and Alexander tells his wife when she asks if he loves Hephaistion that there are many types of love, a statement which proceeds the consummation of their marriage suggesting that his love for Hephaistion is not sexual. Unfortunately, it takes a logical, analytical movie-goer to see the discrepancy of fact in the movie from impression. Sadly, Stone, given the opportunity to portray true friend-love in the ancient—a love that should exist in our society today—falls victim to his agenda-forcing nature, and fails. For that, he gets an F.
Now, for the good. I enjoyed this movie because I felt that the actors truly portrayed characters of depth and motivation. Kilmer’s Philip is powerful and tortured by misunderstanding and Jolie’s manipulative and hateful Olympias. Watching Alexander pulled between the two of them is heartrending. Watching Alexander is intriguing and powerful. Colin Farrell plays Alexander masterfully. Watching him as he is pushed by his dreams of uniting nations under one equal empire is fascinating. He is truly a driven man. A man who’s dream is not even understood by the men who follow him into battle. They follow him because he is their king—an honourable motivation. He is brilliant in battle and in policy as he pursues conquering Persia and Asia, and then adopting them into the Greek fold. He even marries an Asian woman, Roxanne, against the protestations of his generals who want him to marry a Macedonian. The marriage, though, is an application of his belief in the equal status of the Asian tribes in his empire. But his dream is exhausting, as Ptolemy later admits, and he cannot survive it. He is eventually disillusioned and returns to Babylon from his pursuit of India. I watched him, amazed. He was, it almost seems, a man out of his proper time. God surely used him to presage a future idea—future governments and philosophies. The story of Alexander, his dream, his pursuit of fulfilling it excellently is worthy of studying. That part of the movie gets an A-. Thus the movie itself gets a C-. The beauty and valour of the epic tale is tremendous, but Stone’s betrayal of historical accuracy in his directing in order to implement his agenda is inexcusable. The movie is worth a watch for those interested in Ancient Greece and the world of Alexander; but for pure “yay, epic movie” goers, it isn’t a great watch.
Caveat: nudity/sex scene; bare bottom of Farrell; weird androgynous Persian guy.
Thought for the day: teachers watching movies about teachers is an excellent example of poetic learing. (Poetic learning being learning by experience/intuition.) By watching these movies, one is able to slip into their experience--to walk in their shoes a little--and thus learn from them.
At any rate, I watched Stand and Deliver Tuesday. Outside of just the sheer beauty of the performances in this movie, there is much to dig out. This is the story of a teacher (Jaime Escalante played by Lou Diamond Philips) who believes in his students when no one else does. The faculty at the school are either just filling in time because they don't have anything else to do; or else they are burnt out, disillusioned and filled with an "us vs. them" attitude that cannot see potential anymore. Escalante comes in an stirs the pot. He believes something no longer popular in education circles: that "students will rise to the level of their expectations." Imagine that. So he teaches his basic math students Algebra. Then he decides that they can indeed master Calculus. So he offers summer school courses in Trig and Higher Math to prepare them for Calculus their senior year. No one really thinks these barrio kids can do it. But they do. All 18 pass the Calculus AP test. And because they've done something so unexpected, ETS thinks they cheated. Here we see another amazing quality of Escalante--his passion for his students. He believes in them enough to risk his career and stand up for them. In the end, the students must retake the AP test under the scrutiny of the ETS investigators. They all pass again.
I found this man's faith and passion inspiring--and so against this modern educational idea that if you can get "underpriveledged" kids just to read and pass through, that's all you can expect. Baloney. That is true discrimination. Students will rise to meet their expectations.
A small gem of the movie--Escalante gets his kids to memorize formulas in a simple, now considered "outdated" manner--class repetition. My confidence is renewed that I can get 6th graders (who are starting to feel too cool for grammar jingles) to stick with class repetition as a means to an end. Maybe we can even rap a little. :) At any rate, that is what I learned from this movie.
On an aside: I will probably post this on my main site also, but I wanted to say a brief thing that really has nothing and everything to do with Christian classical education. This morning I watched a movie called Pitch Black. I will give the brief disclaimer that it is rated "R" because the language is profuse and there is some gore. (However, anyone who has watche a Robert De Niro movie--language in this isn't nearly so bad.) That said, this was a great movie. But here is my point. As Christians, we should be able to see the hand of God everywhere and in all things. As a Christian classical educator, I especially want to be able not only to see His hand, but also to convey to my students that they should see His hand in all things. Even in secular works of art/film/fiction. This movie has such a heart-stopping Christ-figure moment. And I would never have expected it. Unfortunately, I do have to somewhat spoil the end to give it to you. But knowing the end doesn't really spoil the movie. And I'll try to be vague enough. . . . Riddick is about to make his getaway, leaving some people behind on this planet. He is stopped by one of the characters who has braved the incredible danger to follow him. There is a scuffle and this character ends up immoblized with Riddick's knife at his/her throat. He/she is refusing to leave the others behind and he asks "Are you willing to die for these people?"
"I'm willing to try."
"That isn't what I asked. I asked if you were willing to die for these people."
pause. "Yes."
"Interesting."
They return for the others. When they are almost to the ship, Riddick is stopped by two of the creatures. While the rescued ones get into the skiff, the character returns to help Riddick, finding him wounded by the creatures, but alive. He/she begins to help him back to the skiff encouraging him with "I said I would die for them, I didn't say I would die for you--now come on. Let's go!" Suddenly, as they struggle back you realize this character has been stabbed. For a moment, as the camera switches between their eyes (eyes being a huge theme in the film) you fall back on your ealier opinion of Riddick and wonder if he has stabbed he/she. Then he/she is ripped away--stabbed and grabbed by one of the creatures as Riddick cries "Not for me! Not for me!"
At the end, Riddick escapes with the others--free because he has "died" on the planet. I was stopped. I sat focused on the fact that this man--who admittedly believes in God yet hates Him--received mercy by the death of another. Even he felt himself unworthy of the sacrifice. Yet beyond that, the death was even more vicarious--because his identity was able to die in that instant. He did die on that planet--as someone else.
Admittedly, I don't think an unbeliever would rush to church over that one. But for me, the literary Christ figure was haunting. Another example of seeing God in even the most unlikely of places.
Sorry it's been so long since my last post. In the meantime, I switched classrooms with the 3rd/4th grade teacher (boy, that was work--so many books to carry) and finished up most of my lesson plans. The day-to-day stuff isn't finished, but that has to be done through-out the year, really.
I also watched the first of my "required" movies, Dead Poets Society. Let me tell you, that was so difficult. (note happy sarcasm) Of course you are probably wondering the purpose of watching this film. Everything kind of boils down to learning how to be a master teacher. Prof. Keating is truly a master teacher. Of course, he does have flaws, the greatest of which is his lack of communication/ follow-through with parents--a mistake that inevitably causes him tremendous pain. Also, his relationship with the administration isn't exactly a model of communication and understanding. But that can be carefully laid at the feet of hyperbole to make a point. Here is the poinTITLE: it takes more than just knowledge to make a great teacher. Keating brings several things to his class that no other teacher had done for these boys.
*He brings tremendous love and enthusiasm for his subject. By truly showing it to his students, they want to learn more about it. If he loves it so much, there must be something to it.
*He adds an air of mystery to his subject and himself. The very introduction of the "Dead Poets Society" to the boys creates something for them to discover. Keating makes poetry seem dangerous and tantilizing.
*He is a person they can trust and respect. As the students begin to see and understand aspects of Keating, they love him because he is trustworthy and demands that his students respect him for who he is.
*He keeps his students on their toes. Keatings boys never really know what to expect from him. Of course, for the sake of the film, we don't see the average daily class, but we do realize that he finds random ways to shake things up. He puts students on the spot, thus ensuring that all the students are paying attention as they might be next. He adds movement to class--they aren't stuck in a desk every class period. They go outside. They move around the school. Obviously this can't be done in every school all the time, but there are ways to add movement within the class, helping the students to stay aware and to realize that learning even literature isn't just about sitting in a desk reading.
*He relates his subject to every-day life--to reality. Keating puts the boys in context by showing them previous classes of boys who went through the same course, the same things. On the soccer field, he shows the boys that the emotions and ideas expressed in classic poetry are the same things they feel--universality. He brings his boys to the play, showing them the ultimate expression of dramatic poetry and that it can touch them. He doesn't leave poetry in the classroom.
*He opens new doors of thought to the students by approaching the subject in the opposite way that they expect. The boys are expecting dull, dry analysis; Keating grabs their attention by coming in a different door: the door of emotional expression. By changing their perspective, he enables them to look at things from different sides--rounding out their perception.
*He allows them access to himself beyond the classroom. The boys are able to see and test Keating in the "real world" beyond the structure of the class hour. They see his reactions and actions, giving them an opportunity to judge his character and see if he is consistent. He becomes a real person to them instead of "just" their teacher.
Now, obviously every teacher can't be a Micheal Keating/Robin Williams persona every second of the day. BUT, the things he does to awaken his students can be applied by every teacher. For a teacher in a classical school, this is even more necessary. Since the goal of classical education is to teach students how to learn, teaching them to love learning is vital. Bringing energy, trust, a variety of perspective, a grabbing by the collar to the classroom is essential. I would also suggest communication with administration and parents. (smile) Becoming a master teacher in any school doesn't happen overnight, of course, but applying these qualities to teaching is a major step along the way.
Thursday night I went to see the Baton Rouge Little Theater production of Children of Eden. I was already in analytical mode because my brother had been to see it already (one of his friends is in the chorus). Analytical mode is a good place to be for this musical. This particular production was very well done. The set and costumes were simple, yet very effective and versatile. The music was just spectacular and this particular cast did it every justice. Just hearing the songs sent shivers up my spine. So what is the problem with this musical? The theology mainly, and a few departures from scripture.
In this musical, God is presented as a Father. This isn't necessarily a problem, but the writers took this analogy way too far. He is also a very helpless God, unable to overcome man's will to accomplish what He wants. I did like the way the problem in Adam's and Noah's families reflected original sin, but I had a real problem when God realizes through Noah that when your children grow up there comes a time that you have to "let them go." Human choice becomes a central theme of the musical, to the point that God's "last hope" is endangered by Japheth's choice of bride. God is also seen to age throughout the musical, his greying hair a result of the waywardness and uncontrollability of man.
The musical also adds to or detracts from scripture in several ways. The Tree is merely the Tree of Knowledge. God never tells them that they will die if they eat it, just that they shouldn't eat it. When Eve does eat it, she must leave the garden because she is no longer an innocent child, not because of sin. The musical follows the Miltonian line that Adam chose to eat the fruit rather than be separated from Eve, which I liked. In the wasteland, Adam and Eve give sacrifices of grain and do not hear from God at all. Cain and Abel are told not to venture above to waterfall by Adam, but they do and make an astounding extra-scriptural discovery. Cain then wants to leave, Adam refuses to allow him and Abel is killed when he tries to keep Cain from slaying Adam. The story of Noah doesn't get such rich addition, but after the flood when the sons separate, Noah tells Japheth that if they find the garden they should eat of the Tree of Knowledge because of the wonders it offers.
I won't give everything away because I do think the musical is worth seeing. It is beautiful and does incite thought on the part of a discerning audience member. However, be forwarned: don't go in ready to swallow it all. And be ready for the ultimate picture of an Armenian God who must "let go" of his children as they grow up.
This morning I watched a movie called Pitch Black. I will give the brief disclaimer that it is rated "R" because the language is profuse and there is some gore. (However, anyone who has watche a Robert De Niro movie--language in this isn't nearly so bad.) That said, this was a great movie. The storyline is intriguing. There is definitely a point at which it goes in a copletely different direction than you were thinking. The characters are interesting and believable. And the story starts right in the middle--a touch I love because it requires the seeding of back-knowledge into the plot. The movie is worth watching if you can deal with the language.
But here is the point that really got me about it. As Christians, we should be able to see the hand of God everywhere and in all things. As a Christian classical educator, I especially want to be able not only to see His hand, but also to convey to my students that they should see His hand in all things. Even in secular works of art/film/fiction. This movie has such a heart-stopping Christ-figure moment. And I would never have expected it. Unfortunately, I do have to somewhat spoil the end to give it to you. But knowing the end doesn't really spoil the movie. And I'll try to be vague enough. . . . Don't read it until after you watch it if you might be disappointed.
Near the end of the movie, Riddick is about to make his getaway, leaving some people behind on this planet. He is stopped by one of the characters who has braved the incredible danger to follow him. There is a scuffle and this character ends up immoblized with Riddick's knife at his/her throat. He/she is refusing to leave the others behind and he asks "Are you willing to die for these people?"
"I'm willing to try."
"That isn't what I asked. I asked if you were willing to die for these people."
pause. "Yes."
"Interesting."
They return for the others. When they are almost to the ship, Riddick is stopped by two of the creatures. While the rescued ones get into the skiff, the character returns to help Riddick, finding him wounded by the creatures, but alive. He/she begins to help him back to the skiff encouraging him with "I said I would die for them, I didn't say I would die for you--now come on. Let's go!" Suddenly, as they struggle back you realize this character has been stabbed. For a moment, as the camera switches between their eyes (eyes being a huge theme in the film) you fall back on your ealier opinion of Riddick and wonder if he has stabbed he/she. Then he/she is ripped away--stabbed and grabbed by one of the creatures as Riddick cries "Not for me! Not for me!"
At the end, Riddick escapes with the others--free because he has "died" on the planet. I was stopped. I sat focused on the fact that this man--who admittedly believes in God yet hates Him--received mercy by the death of another. Even he felt himself unworthy of the sacrifice. Yet beyond that, the death was even more vicarious--because his identity was able to die in that instant. He did die on that planet--as someone else.
Admittedly, I don't think an unbeliever would rush to church over that one. But for me, the literary Christ figure was haunting. Another example of seeing God in even the most unlikely of places.
The first time I read this epic was in college--English literature from the Norton Anthology. I hated it. Horribly. And since then I have always felt vaguely guilty about being such an Anglophile while fiercely hating Beowulf. Then a couple of years ago, I read or heard something about a new translation that was wonderful. I filed that information away in my head and thought passingly of trying the ancient epic yet again. After reading the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid and parts of Dante, I felt that perhaps I should brave Beowulf again just to see if I truly/still hated it. My mind turned to that peice of translation info I had filed away earlier. Re-delving in Tolkien added fule to my mental fire (as he loved it). But I never acted on my mental inclination. Until now. I recently picked up and finished Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. It is amazing. Before I started, I compared his translation to the one in Norton. No comparison. If you, in the past, have slugged through the horrific prose translation found in Norton, please, please, forget it. It is more remote to the real fire in this epic that a paragraph summary would be to a Shakespearean play. This translation not only preserves the verse form of the original, but it also highlights the beauty of the ancient language. Heaney preserves the Celtic adjective-nouns like "ring-giver," "mail-shirt," and Geat-hero. The story fleaps off of the page--you can see the bard narrating the adventure before later dukes and wanderers. My guilt is gone--this epic is truly amazing: beautifully God-honouring and passionately alive. All those years I was completely wrong about Beowulf--and my fervour re: the importance of literary translating has been vindicated. Heaney's translation is real and vivid--worth every moment--unlike the "scholarly" prose that no-one should ever have been subjected to! Read it.