In a sense, I am my stories. And because we're all brimming with stories of our own, we love to hear other people's, too. They entertain. They inspire. They teach -- even if we don't always realize what they're teaching.
Jesuit psychotherapist Anthony de Mello wrote that "the shortest distance between a human being and Truth is a story" -- which may explain why the Bible is full of them.
So begins (well, kinda -- I deleted a couple of his first few sentences) the first article in Paul Asay's 8-part series that, as he wrote in a related blog, "explains why we at Plugged In do what we do."
It's a great intro to the topic of cinematic storytelling, something I brought up a couple of months ago in "Bedtime Stories." Over the next several weeks this octalogy is going to provide some fascinating food for thought and discussion.
Check out Paul's article. Then either leave a comment here or over on the Plugged In blog. If you've got a question specifically for Paul, and you'd rather not leave a comment, you can e-mail him directly at letters@pluggedinonline.com.
I keep seeing previews for this end-of-the-world movie 2012. What I didn't know till the other day, though, is that it's not just a movie: It's part of a whole craze that pinpoints the end of the world in that year, including some 200 books and countless Internet rumors. In other words, someone out there -- lots of someones -- is taking this seriously.
Why, why, why? That's not just an expression of exasperation. I really want to know. Especially since so many Christians don't seem to be immune from similar stuff -- notwithstanding Jesus' clear statements that trying to pinpoint when this world will end is a waste of our time.
I won't pretend to have the whole answer. But a big part of it, I think, is simply that these people are bored. They want a sense of excitement in their lives, and nothing's more exciting than the end of the world. Incidentally, I think this boredom also accounts for why many people get caught up in various media-hyped scare stories that seemingly have a more respectable pedigree.
Like me, you may be looking forward to seeing the film Where the Wild Things Are. I remember the story well from my childhood. In "Deep Down, We're All Wild Things," Tyler Huckabee explores the redemptive themes of the story by comparing the plight of its main character, Max, to all of us.
In the story, Max gets in trouble. And so, as a means of dealing with what he views as unfairness, he gets mad and goes to the place where the wild things are. Huckabee writes:
We’re familiar with that. We’re in the same place that poor Max finds himself: a world that we just can’t quite seem to get the hang of. We’re being fired from our jobs. We’re being hassled by our landlords. We’re being dumped by our significant others. And then there’s God, and He’s the one I’ve sort of been leading up to.
God’s pretty easy to get mad at. The world’s gone all wrong, life is impossibly difficult, He seems to be the one to blame. Maybe you’ve given your all to Jesus, only to find that He wants a little bit more. Maybe you think you’ve got a better way figured out, one without all those pesky rules, but you just can’t shake the feeling that God’s sitting on your shoulder, insisting that His way is better. You’re mad, ready to run away, but it’s impossible.
Sometimes I've just been mad about the way life is going. I don't necessarily blame God, but I wonder why He's allowed certain things. Huckabee writes:
We’ve felt Max-like fury at the forces in our lives, be they personal, professional or divine. We fantasize about being in charge, and getting the unmitigated approval of our peers, bosses, professors, pastors and crushes. And, of course, our sometimes boundless rage at God, who deals out disappointment and discouragement so liberally. We snarl, like the Psalmist, “Why do the wicked prosper?” We pitch fits like prodigals, running away and indulging our wild sides.
It’s an act God probably expects from us, given how often it happens. He’s been dealing with His angry servants since the very beginning. In the Bible, God fields the rage of such giants as David, Job, Jonah and Moses with patience -- never shushing their complaints with any sniper-like lightning bolts from the sky. He listens; He lets them have their say. “The LORD is like a Father to His children,” the Psalmist says in Psalm 103:13-14, “tender and compassionate to those who fear Him. For He knows how weak we are, He remembers we are only dust.”
This article illuminates a truth: the propensity for us to run to something we can control when we don't like what God is doing. Just like Max runs from his mother's discipline because he believes she is being unfair, we sometimes run from God's way because we don't like it ... or trust that He has our best interest in mind. But as one friend told me, "the illusion that I'm in control or doing my own thing is just that ... an illusion." Ultimately the journey away from our loving Father yields emptiness. Sendak’s tale illustrates this.
Max doesn’t set up shop with the wild things. He tames them and goes home. Supper’s still hot, mom still loves him and everything’s the way he left it. His imagination has bled out the anger, and his fantasy world hasn’t lived up to the real thing. He’s had his tantrum, and he’s calling it a day. Max’s return journey is the most important point of his trip. He knows when it’s time to move on.
As the book says (its only words): "The king of all wild things was lonely and wanted to be where someone loved him best of all." And that's really what we all want.
Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. —Psalm 73:25
We're excited to announce the premiere of our new movie review for young adults called Reel Discernment featuring Plugged In's Bob Waliszewski and Cheryl Wilhelmi. Each week Bob and Cheryl will give us a quick look into what we can expect from the new releases. Here is this week's description:
Last August I found myself pining after a good digital camera. I ended up buying a Nikon D40 ... along with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor lens, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor lens, a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR lens, three Hoya HMC Haze UV filters, a Hoya 52mm RM-72 Infrared filter, a Hoya 52mm Circular Polarizer Glass filter, a Nikon SB-800 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight, a couple of slave strobes and a couple of lens hoods.
Near the end of October 2008, one of my friends from church provided me with a VIP pass to some random event, and so I had the perfect opportunity to use my new camera. The event took place in a baseball park; most attendees were in the stands, but those of us in the VIP section were on the field, just feet away from the podium. There were maybe three rows of people between me and the podium, so I was able to get some great photos.
I'm interested in becoming a better photographer, and so I'd like to get your feedback on my photography work. Please let me know what you think of the composition, the lighting, the focus and bokeh, and so on. Those of you who are pros, give me your thoughts on how I might have adjusted aperture, shutter speed and ISO to get better results.
During my first semester in college, I was invited by some friends to go on a cross-Michigan road trip from the UP's Marquette to Detroit. On a whim, I went.
The night of our arrival we all went to see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." I may have brought a newspaper and squirt gun. I forget. I still remember those around me, though: in crazy outfits, shouting lines at just the right time, running up to the screen and appearing to climb up someone's face.
A theater of the absurd, truly.
After the craziness, we cleaned up, headed to the car, and drove back ... somewhere. It's been a while. And I wasn't, um, walking with the Lord at the time, so my memory is a bit foggy.
And that's precisely where my story differs from Christine Rhyner's, which she recounts in today's featured Boundless article, "A Night on the Wild Side." Just when she didn't think the night could get any wilder, her friends inadvertently abandoned her at the theater, which became desolate minutes after the midnight matinee ended.
So there she was at 2 a.m.: alone, walking abandoned streets, lost, miserable ... and then a car pulls up. And the window rolls down. And then she remembers that she's dressed like a transvestite.
Yeah. That's her introduction to the wildest part of the evening.
It looked like a cool movie, the kind of dark action flick to which I find myself drawn. So, as a matter of course, I looked up the review on Plugged In Online.
The plot seems intriguing, the characters seem multi-dimensional, the film itself (director, actors, cinematography, etc.) is no doubt of high artistic quality.
But it's clear that (and I add the following qualifier as a nod to the moral ambiguity of our time) -- for me -- the bad outweighs the good. The injurious effects likely are greater than the movie's virtue-enlarging effects. And so I'll pass.
Most obviously, I don't see how the rampant over-the-top sexual content could possibly be any good for me:
"... the two engage in a graphic sex scene, complete with nudity (her breasts and both of their backsides), much movement and a climax."
"Another physical tryst, where the two strip and writhe around on a couch, ends when Nite Owl finds himself to be impotent without first doing superhero-type work."
"Nite Owl also has a dream in which he and Silk Spectre, both nude, meet in the middle of a barren landscape and "strip" their nudity, revealing superhero outfits underneath."
"Dr. Manhattan, pre-transformation, has sex with his girlfriend; she later leaves him after he develops an interest—and passionately kisses—Silk Spectre (who's 16 at the time)."
"Dr. Manhattan spends most of the film in the big, blue buff, and audiences see him every which way: back, side and front. He sends nude duplicates of himself to pleasure girlfriend Silk Spectre—resulting in a bizarre foursome."
"Silk Spectre's mom, Sally ..., is sexually assaulted by The Comedian. We're asked to watch as he attacks her."
"Silk Spectre's outfits are slinky and provocative. Rorschach's mother was apparently a prostitute. Another prostitute flashes her breasts at a passing superhero. Audiences catch glimpses of pornographic magazines and movies. A naked man is seen frolicking during a party."
Like I said, I'm not sure being exposed to such God-dishonoring sights and sounds would make me a better man, no matter how deeply the themes of this film are explored.
The violence, likewise, seems beyond redemption:
When people get shot, we see skin separate like a burst balloon. When people have their arms broken, we see the bones stab through the flesh. Arms are cut off with buzz saws. Dogs fight over the leg bone of a murdered little girl—foot and shoe still attached. Dr. Manhattan has his body stripped into oblivion, layer by layer ... twice. The Comedian shoots and kills a pregnant woman (he fathered the child) after the woman slices his face with a broken bottle. Rorschach, as a child, rips off someone's ear with his teeth.... Clearly, Watchmen shares far more with Saw than Spider-Man.
The review's conclusion helped me make up my mind about whether or not to spend 10 bucks to watch this movie:
Watchmen, the movie, retains that cruel sense of despair. At times, its adherence to the source material feels almost slavish. Yet it's a bit pastiche, too, layering in extra—gratuitous—sex, blood and gore just for raw, big screen shock value.
As a book, Watchmen is messy. As a movie, Watchmen is a mess. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it dispirited, depressing schlock—both as a work of art and as a mode of message. Fanboys may be enthralled, but I'd imagine the uninitiated will walk away appalled, confused and even strangely bored. At the advance screening I attended, where folks generally stay glued to their seats, I saw a number of people leave the theater. Some never came back. This isn't a movie as much as an assault.
But this is a tale of two reviews, right?
Out of curiosity, I checked out the review over at Christianity Today Movies, where they gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars (for some reason they are sure to explain away).
To be fair, the reviewer says in the first paragraph that this is not a "family-friendly superhero movie." Perhaps in a nod to my commentary on another movie review of theirs, they point out that this movie indeed "relishes in its R rating."
Nevertheless, for Christianity Today, the film is redeemed by its story and the well-executed telling of that story. Yes, they say, Watchmen is "a comprehensive film still relevant to today's general audiences." The reviewer uses words such as "brilliant," "smart," "beautiful," "ambitious," "visionary," "imaginative" and "impressive visuals" to describe this film. His conclusion: "It's a surprisingly good adaptation of unique sci-fi material that is challenging and haunting."
CT's review says that this movie is "certainly watchable"; Plugged In Online's review concludes that this movie is really watchable by "no one."
These two film reviews represent two different approaches by Christian artists. One seems to place an emphasis on how a movie might affect us, how it might provoke us toward godliness in every lofty sense of that word. The other seems to place an emphasis on the artistic quality of a movie, how the story and characters might help us explore meaningful themes. The first type of review primarily helps us discern whether or not to pay money to take in a couple of hours of entertainment; the second primarily aims to help us work through issues brought up by a movie we've already chosen to see.
I think there's value to both kinds of reviews. As someone who's studied communication in grad school, as someone who's been involved in the arts for decades, I can appreciate the study of difficult and dirty material. Wrestling in the mud can help us better appreciate God and His creation.
But in the end, I am more concerned about the cost required for this kind of knowledge. Am I willing to endure scenes of actors portraying explicit sex? Am I willing to allow a camera operator to command my eyes to immerse myself in every gruesome detail of death and gore? Am I willing to go into the dreary depths of hell, emerging polluted and stained and smelling putrid, with a possibility of better appreciating heaven?
Dear (former) friends. I am writing to inform you that I have joined a network marketing company. I realize that this decision may cause you to terminate our friendship. I apologize for the inconvenience.
That was the e-mail I felt like writing when I decided to begin selling beauty products. My trepidation about confessing my new venture was not unwarranted. After all, one of my friends said, "It just seems like a small thing; and when I think of you, I don't think of small things."
Though I started the business as a sister-bonding endeavor, I felt awkward. As much as I loved the products I was representing, I had my own negative stereotypes of network marketing and was sure my friends did, too. And yet, I felt a peace and even a nudge to go ahead and try it.
Two-and-a-half months have passed since I started, and telling people has become easier. Mostly because everyone I've sold to has raved about the products and experienced great results. But also because through the business, God has revealed something to me about the way His Kingdom works. I wrote about it in "Lipgloss and Jesus:"
As I began to understand the tenets of the company I was serving, a surprising thing happened. I made this realization: Evangelism is essentially network marketing.
Consider the similarities:
You have a "product" you believe in.
You are seeking to share the results of your "product" in a way that entices others to try it.
You are seeking to duplicate yourself in other "believers" in order to get the word out more effectively.
As I considered the factors that made this particular company successful (with 100 percent growth per year for the past five years), I realized that they relied heavily on the principles of evangelism outlined in Scripture. In fact, I could not ignore the parallels.
I have been shocked by the depth of what the Lord has taught me through something as seemingly superficial as selling beauty products. Another friend of mine, upon hearing about my discoveries confirmed how it directly related to her plight of fundraising for the mission field.
Becoming a beauty product peddler actually revived my passion for evangelism. And so I think my friend was mistaken. What I am doing is not a "small thing." What about you? What ordinary ventures has God used to teach you His truth?
I've made a habit of not watching the Oscar telecast. The touching moments of genuine surprise or gratitude are almost invariably overshadowed by the more-usual fatuous statements by self-important actors who think their celebrity status automatically confers upon them infinite wisdom.
Watching the news this morning and seeing the infectious joy of the crew of Slumdog Millionaire (a movie you must see if you haven't already), with director Danny Boyle channeling Tigger, made me half-regret skipping the show last night.
But then there was Sean Penn, who won Best Actor honors for his role as slain homosexual activist Harvey Milk. (Never mind that Mickey Rourke clearly deserved the honor for his role of a has-been wrestler in The Wrestler. Unfortunately for him, his movie was not PC enough.) Hearing Penn's acceptance speech just confirmed my earlier judgment.
Penn gave a whole new meaning to fatuousness and added hypocrisy to boot. He couldn't resist getting in a dig at those who supported the recent Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriages. Penn said:
I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grand-children's eyes, if they continue that way of support.
Shame!? Would this be the same Sean Penn who gave a veritable tongue-bath to dictator Raúl Castro of Cuba, who assumed control of that unfortunate nation from his equally murderous brother, Fidel, in 2006? Penn's alleged "journalism" for The Nation magazine is almost too embarrassing to read. (Penn was traveling with historian DouglasBrinkleyand nobody's-fool journalist ChristopherHitchens, but Raúl granted an interview only to Penn—which speaks volumes about all concerned.)
Penn is always ready to acknowledge the alleged perfidy of the United States and constantly makes excuses for the abuses of Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, but this line takes the cake: "The hour was getting late, but I didn't want to leave without asking Castro about allegations of human rights violations and alleged narco-trafficking facilitated by the Cuban government."
Despite hinting at the possibility of a limited opening and adopting a few measures to relax economic control, the Council of State's new president has not loosened the state's tight grip on news and information. The transition period and Raúl Castro's first few months in sole charge saw continuing harassment of independent journalists including police brutality, summonses and searches by State Security (the political police) and detention for short periods. Nineteen of the journalists arrested during the March 2003 "Black Spring" continue to serve jail terms ranging from 14 to 27 years in appalling prison conditions. With a total of 23 journalists detained, Cuba is the world's second biggest prison for the media, after China.
"Even if Castro no longer calls the shots, the repressive machinery he constructed over almost half a century remains fully intact," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "Until that changes, it's unlikely there will be any real progress on human rights in Cuba."
For almost five decades,Cuba has restricted nearly all avenues of political dissent. Cuban citizens have been systematically deprived of their fundamental rights to free expression, privacy, association, assembly, movement, and due process of law. Tactics for enforcing political conformity have included police warnings, surveillance, short-term detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, criminal prosecutions, and politically motivated dismissals from employment.
Oh, this would also be the same "people's paradise" that until recently jailed homosexuals, which to my mind is a tad worse than denying them marriage rights.
Penn's cluelessness and hypocrisy are of a piece with other Hollywood types who never hesitate to criticize the U.S. but fall all over themselves to suck up to dictators. (Oliver Stone, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Benicio Del Toro, Steven Soderbergh and Michael Moore, please report to the principal's office.)
Penn apparently thinks people motivated by moral or religious reasoning in voting for Proposition 8 should be ashamed of themselves, but, based on his own words, murderous thugs and dictators always have a plausible reason for their actions.
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
Recent Comments