Thoughts on the Phantom Menace

   New Star Wars is out. And, as any fan does, I watched a few of the earlier Star Wars films in preparation. As a child of the 90's, I have a particular fondness for the Prequels. So I started with The Phantom Menace. Sadly, it's not as good as I want it to be, or even as I remember it being. I've been mulling over it since, and I decided I need to get my thoughts out rather than allow them to stew in my head. So here I go.

   

Dear Christian Writers

 The other day, I watched Dear White People. I loved it. It had a good story, explored a theme, and had characters that I could invest in. After I watched it, I realized this film was quite similar to God's Not Dead. Except good. So, as I thought over the similarities and differences between the two, I picked out a few lessons that Christian writers can take from Dear White People to tell better stories.

Thor and Self-Sacrifice

   Since this post goes out on Good Friday, I was wondering how to make it topical. As I was thinking this, I thought over some of the ideas I had in my head for posts I would like to do in the future. One of them was a post on the film Thor. As I thought more about it, I actually realized that Thor has a lot to do with Good Friday and Easter. Why is that? Because Thor is about self sacrifice.
   

Movie Review: Ida

 

Recently, I've been trying to read more 'good' literature. I don't want to settle for only reading average works, but I want to read stuff that is widely considered great. This drive to read better has drifted over into my watching patterns as well. Therefore, when I saw that the winner of Best Foreign Film was on Netflix, I decided to watch it.

   

The Prequels are Not Dumb

   Here is a non-controversial admittance (not a confession): I like Star Wars. I find the Original Trilogy (Episodes IV-VI) a fun, intelligent, poignant collection of sci-fi  films. Here's a controversial admittance: I like the Star Wars prequels. I find the Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I-III) an enjoyable, intelligent, and tragic collection of sci-fi films (and I don't mean tragic in the sense that some might). I understand that the writing has faults, the dialogue delivery is cringe-worthy at times, and the action tends to crowd out the story. However, having recently watched Episode III, I must say that it is a decent, dare I say it, good tragedy. However, I'm not here to defend the acting or any of that, I'm here to propose that the prequels are not mindless and dumb. They make a very important point, specifically one that the Christian Church should keep in mind.

   What do I mean by that? The prequels start with Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi, rescuing a young slave boy from a life of misery. This boy, Anakin Skywalker, having lived his life as a slave in an uncivilized desert planet, suddenly is brought to the center of the universe. He goes from having only a relationship with his mother to having a mentor and a friend in Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan Kenobi. First, Qui-Gon must receive the Jedi Council's permission to receive the boy as his apprentice. The council denies this request, for it would break their rules of only accepting young children as apprentices, and Anakin's age (10-12) was too old. Qui-Gon leaves, upset, and soon dies in a battle with the Sith.

   This introduces the main point of the Star Wars Prequels: when a religion becomes legalism, it dies. The Jedi, after years and years of existing comfortably in the Republic, have changed from being dependent on the force to being dependent on the Republic. The religion of the Jedi is reduced from a 'relationship' with the force to a focus on keeping the rules. And, as things tend to go, as the Jedi focus on the rules, they get bound with the rule makers: the Republic. Thus, the Republic becomes the important thing, and the Jedi promise to keep it running.
   The legalism of the Jedi is best seen in they're continuous admonition to resist relationships. Why? For attachment causes loss, loss leads to fear and fear leads to the dark side. Of course, without relationships people can also become lonely, lost, and depressed. The Jedi are seeking to avoid the negative sides of relationships and, in doing so, lose the positive as well. Emotions are not to be avoided, but being controlled by emotions are to be. However, due to this lack of being able to have relationships with others (and the continual distrust of the Jedi Council), Anakin eventually seeks a friendship with the only person who will listen to him: Palpatine. And that doesn't end so well.  

   Thus this legalism and dependence on the Republic leads, eventually, to the Jedi doing whatever it takes to keep the Republic in power. They never question the orders of the Republic, because they are no longer focused on what is right, but what keeps the peace. From that point on, it is only a slow slide from Republic to Dictatorship, from Democracy to Empire.

   Why is this useful to the Christian Church? Because it embodies how a religion can turn from a focus on God (or the force) to a focus on the a Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with partnering with an Earthly Kingdom to do good deeds, as long as the Church always recognizes that there is a distinction between the Earthly Kingdom and the Heavenly Kingdom. However, if the Church starts to become a part of the state, as the Jedi became the Republic's peacekeepers, then it is the Heavenly Kingdom that ends. In history we can see this happening. When the Church becomes too involved with the State, the Church is the one that suffers or spreads suffering to others.

   So why are the prequels not dumb? They show us how a religion should not behave. It should not turn away from Deity to rules, not turn away from Heavenly Kingdoms to becoming a part of Earthly Kingdoms. Instead, it should keep a separation between Church and State, for if they do not it ends in Empire. And then it will take forty years in the wilderness (or 23) before the Church can get on its feet once again.

   What do you think? Are the Star Wars Prequels a little bit better now? Or are you still disgusted with them? Comment below and tell me what you think!

Not What but How

   What we say is important. Having a point behind my words or a point behind my stories is important. That means that I am not just blowing steam, but actually spending my time for a purpose. However, just because I have a good point, does not mean that I should sacrifice storytelling. How I tell a story or how I make a point is sometimes as important as the point itself.
   Take, for example, the Star Wars prequels. I think they have a fabulous point to make about a pitfall of institutional religion (more on that in a different post). The problem is that the way the story was told is not that great. The acting is poor in spots, the dialogue is not that strong, and some characters can be annoying. Also, the point itself can sometimes be lost in frivolous battles.
    Why is it important in how a point is conveyed? How a point is conveyed can say a lot about how people think of the point itself. For example, a teacher can have wonderful grammatical principles to give to his students, but if he cannot give teach them well then the students will not learn them. If the teacher does not properly teach the principles, then what importance will those principles hold in the students' minds?
   Here's another analogy: a Jacksonville Jaguars fan is really excited that their football team had a winning season. This is a legitimate reason to celebrate and to tell to others. However, if the fan tells all her friends that her team is way better than theirs and, ergo, their teams suck, that message will be soured by the means. If, however, the football fan excitedly mentions to her friends that her team has a winning record after however-many-seasons, then she gives her friends a chance to celebrate with her, rather than be defensive about their teams.
   This also applies to giving movie reviews. Last year, I reviewed God's Not Dead and had a few critical things to say about it. I opened with the critical remarks, and then the rest of the review was nitpicked by fans thinking I was criticizing the entire thing. The way I worded my review and how I presented it caused people to make assumptions about my thoughts. It was not just what I said about the film which represented my views, but how I said them.
   I also listened to a podcast recently which reviewed The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies. They opened negatively, waxed on eloquently about the pitfalls of the film, and then squeezed in a few things they liked about it. Of course, most of what they said was with good reason. The film has many shortcomings, I acknowledge that. However, the way the statements were made (stating that this was obviously bad or nobody could keep from laughing at this part) discredits those people, belittles even, those who may have liked the film. Perhaps this is just me being thin-skinned, but I think that even when criticizing, there must be some measure of tact.
   Of course, most of humor nowadays entails belittling and making fun of stuff. Some stuff well deserves it, some doesn't, but it gets funnies made about it all the same. Maybe this is me just being ridiculous, but I think, to some extent, respect should be the first thought. Then, in relationship, loving jokes can be made. I don't know how that really works in an age were media can be thrown up on the internet where anybody can see it, but I'd like to challenge myself to be more respectful, even with things, or people, I dislike.

An Obsession with Epic

   People don't like to be bored. They just don't. And with the invention of the laptops, iPhones, films, and (of course) the internet, people never have to be.
   At first, people were fine with small movies. Things didn't have to be great and grand, as long as they told a good story. Then movies like Star Wars came along. Everyone realized just how big, how grand films could become. Filmmakers could show entire planets explode and a whole new universe of possibilities entered into their minds. Problem was that people didn't just take this new realm and tell good stories. That's too risky. Instead, it was easier to copy things people already liked. Thus, we ended up with Star Wars ripoffs; a few good, original ideas; and book adaptations. That's how we got the Lord of the Rings movies.
   The first trilogy of movies was good. It took the story of the books and transferred its themes to the screen. There were minor changes, which some hate and some like, but overall the films were well received. Then came the Hobbit trilogy. The problem with the Hobbit (the book) is that it was written before the Lord of the Rings. It's not so much a prequel as a fairy-tale, with little of the darkness and grand scope of the follow books. However, since the Lord of the Rings movies are already out, people expect a similar production from the Hobbit.
   Thus the filmmakers are left with a tough decision. Do they make the Hobbit like the book: a lighter, smaller, more 'fun' story? Or do they make what everyone is expecting: a huge, epic tale of armies and rings and sorcery? The filmmakers chose to do what they thought they could pull off: a Lord of the Rings prequel, rather than a direct Hobbit-to-screen transfer.
   With that preamble, how does that tie me into the movie I am actually reviewing? Well, I feel that the problem with the movie was exactly that: it was too epic. There were too many orcs, too many elves, too many narrow escapes and explosions. Some I liked, but when I backed up and looked around, I was stuck wondering: why aren't they all dead? If this were real life they'd all be dead.
   Of course, I thought the same thing about the Lord of the Rings movies. I wondered how everyone survived even though thousands of others didn't, given that most of the main characters put themselves in the most dangerous parts of battle. Still, when you look at the scale of the attacks (at Helm's Deep, Saruman sent 10,000 orcs), and see Gimli and Legolas fighting over which slew 42 orcs, the odds don't seem so impossible. But when you see the hundreds of orcs each character would have had to slay in the Hobbit movies, it all feels a little too fantastical.
   That's what I didn't like. What did I like? I felt that the portrayal of the dragon-sickness was very good. The acting was pretty good overall, but I felt Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage were especially good. Ken Stott as Balin I also enjoyed, especially in scenes between him and Bilbo. Actually, the film had some good things to say about greed, loyalty, courage, even loving your enemies (as strange as that seems in a movie where lots of people kill each other).
   So, overall, what did I think of the movie? I thought it was okay, but stuck too much to amazing cinematography and fight scenes, while forgetting about telling a good story. A rating out of 10? I would say somewhere around 6.

   What about you? Did you watch The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies? Did you like it, hate it? What about this blog post: do you agree that American movies may have an obsession with epic? Feel free to comment below!

The Hanging Tree of Panem

   Recently, I went to watch Mockingjay Part 1. It was quite a strange experience, actually, because I watched it Saturday afternoon and then preached a sermon the next morning (which can be found here if you're interested).

   The movie was quite good. It was a well portrayed example of what war is. It tells of how an oppressed people can change a corrupted government. It shows how people can band together to get justice even against near impossible odds.

   That's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the song. You know the song, the one Katniss sings which is then scored over one of the propos. The song which has been cycling through my head for the last week. My theory is that this song reflects the point of Mockingjay, Part 1 and part 2. 

(Beware, possible spoilers ahead!)

   The song Katniss sings (The Hanging Tree) is a disturbing song. (Lyrics can be found here.) The first verse talks of a man who was hanged for the supposed murder of three. Then it says that strange things happened at this place, but those strange things are no stranger than what would happen if the listener were to come to meet the singer in the tree. Who is the singer? Perhaps later verses will tell.

   The second verse repeats the question of the first, asking if the listener will come to the hanging tree. This verse is different, it tells that while the 'murderer' was being hanged, he called out for his lover to flee. The third verse reveals something startling: the dead man is the singer. The listener, in the story of the song, is the love of the dead man. The fourth verse wraps it all up. The dead man, in calling his lover to flee to the tree, tells her to hang herself. That is the only way that she can be free.

   How does this reflect the theme of Mockingjay? This song presents a terrible situation. There's a man being hanged for murder, whether or not he did it (the song doesn't say), and he calls out for his lover to run. However, he's not calling for her to just flee, he wants her to avoid the 'government' the only way she can: death.

   Katniss, too, is in a terrible situation. She is a part of the Rebellion, but knows that they don't have much of a chance. She knows that statistically she should be dead already. But when she goes out and sees the destruction that Snow has created, she understands that inaction is not an option. Mere evacuation is not an option. Instead, she flees to the hanging tree. She goes into the very heart of battle and calls everyone else to join her likewise. The noose is around her neck and she is calling for everyone else to line up beside her.

   The funny thing is that the Capitol speaks the exact same message. It calls for its children to strike against the rebellion, and the Rebels call to strike against the Capitol. In this violence and bloodshed, what happens? Both the dead man and the lover will be hanged. They'll find freedom, but only in death. Finnick Odair actually states this outright in the film when he says, "I wish we had all died and no one was in this situation. I wish we were all dead."

   The funny thing is, while the Capitol is calling for their followers to fight and Katniss calls for the oppressed to strike back, Peeta is the lone voice of sanity. He calls for the laying down of arms. The Capitol thinks this is a way to get the rebels to calm down. Peeta knows better. He knows that resistance does not have to be violent to make things change. He seems to know that if one violent government is overthrown another will take its place. Instead, Peeta calls for a different way. He calls for a way of resistance which doesn't end in the elimination of the human race (violence), but ends in reconciliation.

   What did you think of Mockingjay Part 1? Did you enjoy it? Hate it? Comment below!

Thoughts on Captain America: Winter Soldier

   Last week I went to see Captain America: Winter Soldier. The film was, to my mind, one of the better Marvel films. While there is violence, if you are a fan of superhero movies you will probably like it.
However, that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the theme of the film. Namely: choice. Winter Soldier wonders whether giving humanity a choice is worth the risk of losing security.
   This is a question that I have often wondered myself. Is giving humanity the choice to do evil necessary? Would it not be better to avoid suffering, even if it ended up in creating humanity robots?
   This is a question that theologians also must ask themselves. Why did God give humanity the ability to turn against him in the Garden of Eden? If God was all loving, why even give us a choice? One might compare this to holding chocolate in front of a dieting man. Why even tempt him with the option? The answer is a simple one:
   Love.
   Love requires choice. Robots cannot love. Love is not mere chemistry in the mind. That is infatuation or instinct. Love is making a conscious choice for the betterment of the other person. And, in order for love to exist, there must be the option for the one who is loved to walk away from the lover. God, in order to show his love and be loved by humanity, had to give humanity the option not to love him. If there is no choice, then tyranny is all that remains.
   The majesty of God's grace, however, is that not only one choice is offered, but many. If only one test was given, then all of us would have failed at the Garden. However, God gives us multiple chances for redemption. This, too, is shown in Winter Soldier (to some extent). Captain America encounters his enemy and, instead of destroying him and thereby saving his life, he chooses instead to risk his own life in an effort to redeem his enemy (much like Luke in Star Wars). 

What are your thoughts? Did you watch Captain America: Winter Soldier? What did you think?

Everyone is Connected

I recently watched God's Not Dead, a film inspired by the apologetic book by Dr. Rice Broocks. There is much to say about it, both for it and against it (here are two articles that might be of interest: Why God's Not Dead is going to fail and Why God’s Not Dead is Taking Movie Theatres by Storm.)
   First, there are some criticisms of the film which should be (if only slightly) addressed. All non-Christians in this film are either evil or headed quickly toward death. I am unsure if this was supposed to be an example of the consequences of sin; if so, it seems to be unrealistic compared the world around us. Though it is true that people do die or get diseases, it happens to Christians are readily as non-Christians.
   There is also the point that any professor behaving as Radison would most probably be thrown out of his position. And while most atheists are not atheistic because of emotions (like Radison is), I must concede that there are those who are more 'anti-theist' than 'atheist'.
   However, the big thing I found fascinating about this story was the theme of complete connection. Every single character was connected to another. Everyone single story line was connected in someway. And every character was affected by each other. The story lines were almost ridiculously intertwined. It was 'coincidences' in the realm of Once Upon a Time or Heroes. At the beginning I was thinking, "This is cool, but kind of silly. People's lives don't really coincide in this way." Then I thought a bit more. Many TV shows, movies, or books I read do not have such intertwined plots. When they do, it is either because of an 'ancient prophecy' or just happenstance. Yet, God's Not Dead rejects both of those ideas, choosing instead that a benevolent God is in charge of everything. And if God is seeking to draw everyone to him, then why would it seem ridiculous that a car won't start or that all the main protagonists just happen to have close seats at  Newsboys concert?

   What were your opinions of God's Not Dead? If you haven't watched it yet, are you intending to?