I have over 150 "have-to-answer" emails in my inbox, so it would seem a good time to work on the blog. (I'll just think of this as a warm-up rather than a put-off. Note: If you're waiting on an email from me, it will come today). Some items of late to mark the days:
I just finished two books, both with a financial theme: The Price of Everything, a parable of economic emergent order, by Russell Roberts, and The Third Conversion, a "novelette" by R. Scott Rodin about fundraising as ministry and not just money. The first book is a very readable text that our seniors are reading in Economics; the second is a more semi-hokey series of conversations between a seasoned fundraiser and his up-and-coming protege.
While recovering from my first kidney stone surgery, I found myself with some time to actually watch a few things on Netflix via the iPad. I'd heard of Joss Whedon's Firefly series (only one season of 15 episodes, capped off for resolution by the movie, Serenity) and enjoyed this "space western" well enough. I also had time for a few Shakespeare films (Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V and Patrick Stewart in Macbeth were excellent), which were fun and novel to watch.
There's been a lot of "launching" going on this January. A week ago, City Pres got off the ground with our first official worship service (I helped serve the Lord's Supper) and our Tuesday night CityGroup started back up; this past week, we kicked off our Veritas capital campaign and website, which we hope will come to first fruition in early March; and I've enjoyed getting back in the classroom twice a week teaching the second semester of our senior American History course (two very different but engaging texts: A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schwiekart and Michaell Allen and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn).
Other highlights so far this month: 70-degree weather, my four capitalist daughters selling three (and counting) enormous boxes worth of chocolate for their homeschool band program, Megan clearing off and cleaning my desk (she loves me), NFL football playoffs (which is really the only time I'm interested enough to watch), the daily newspaper in my driveway, cold milk on hand, and people who call me "friend".
Okay. Guess it's time to deal with email, to which I say (in my best British accent): "Do your worst!" Thanks for reading.
Our Veritas Online Home Day Film Festival launches today. Here's the intro video Megan, the girls, and I put together this past weekend to officially kick it off. Enjoy.
The backstop was three times higher and made from a wooden frame and chicken wire. Shortstop felt a whole lot further away from first base then it looks now. Still, back before there was a movie about plowing under farm acreage for a baseball field and the whole "Is this Heaven?" thing, indeed there was - only in Illinois instead of Iowa.
Thanks, Dad, for not planting over the baseball diamond. Truly, it's "gone the distance."
Over the past several months, I've been working my way through Ayn Rand's seminal novel, Atlas Shrugged. While I'm usually a quick reader, Rand's 54-year-old, 1,088-page epic about the clash between laissez-faire capitalism and unbridled socialism has taken more time than usual to read, but not because it's poorly written; I'm a coach and it's baseball season (and books don't read themselves).
Fortunately, I'd read enough to cover the newly-released Atlas Shrugged (Part 1) movie, made for $10 million and filmed in 26 days. Megan and I saw it Sunday night and, though I confess I was skeptical as to how it would play for reasons of limited budget and potentially bad acting, my fears were relieved. This independently-produced film featured some capable actors (I liked both Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden), a good musical score (Elia Cmiral), and CGI that wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it'd be. In case you haven't seen it yet, here's a trailer to give you an idea of what I mean:
In a word, the film is plenty watchable as a movie, but the real reason to see it is for the storyline of the book. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote a succinct summary at TownHall.com, noting its timeliness for our present-day economic situation:
"Atlas Shrugged is a novel, but its plot is anything but fiction. In it, successful businesswoman, Dagny Taggart, the head of one of the largest railroad companies in America, struggles to keep her company alive in challenging economic times. Searching for innovative ways to stay afloat, she teams with steel magnate Hank Rearden, the developer of an innovative metal alloy, thought to be the strongest metal in the world. Success seems assured. Then the federal government steps in. The government proclaims the Taggart-Rearden partnership 'unfair' to other steel producers and passes a law regulating how many businesses an individual can own. The law is euphemistically titled the 'Equalization of Opportunity' bill."
Thomas goes on to explain the significance of the book 54 years since its publication:
"Atlas Shrugged is about those who would penalize individual achievement and subsidize 'the collective.' It is the embodiment of Karl Marx's philosophy, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' To put it another way, the collective believes that if you earn $2 dollars and I make $1 dollar, you owe me 50 cents to make things 'fair.' This is redistributionist or, to paraphrase the president (Obama), 'spreading the wealth around.'"
Not one to swoon (over anything), Thomas encourages folks to go see the movie. More liberal thinker Michael Shermer, writing at The Huffington Post, also liked the film, noting that "the choice to set the film in 2016 instead of the 1950s allowed the writers to tie in current events related to the recession and bailouts -- with truck transportation and the airlines financially restricted because of excessive fuel prices and America returning to railroads as the bloodline of commerce." For the uninitiated, he also explains Rand's overarching philosophy of objectivism and her ultimate hero, John Galt:
"Who is John Galt? He is the film's principle avatar for Ayn Rand, without her all-too-human flaws. Who is Ayn Rand? She is the mind behind the philosophy of Objectivism, which she once summarized while standing on one foot:
In Objectivism, (1) reality exists independent of human thought, (2) reason is the only viable method for understanding it, (3) people should seek personal happiness and exist for their own sake and no one should sacrifice himself for or be sacrificed by others, and (4) laissez-faire capitalism is the best political-economic system to enable the first three conditions to flourish. This combination, said Rand, allows people to "deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit."
To American ears, this sounds positively patriotic...until one looks past Objectivism's ideals into its realities. In a recent Facebook exchange, Ryan Dykhouse, a former student of mine and now a junior political science major at Olivet Nazarene University, voiced his perspective on Rand's philosophy this way:
"Ayn Rand believed that charity was immoral, that individuals are solely themselves responsible for all circumstances, and utterly promoted the prominence of the elite. Reason, the rational individual, has been utterly debunked. All individuals are products of the relationships they have with others. If you ignore the communal nature of humanity, you ignore the function of morality. The overbearing individualism of Ayn Rand's objectivism destroys the communal nature of humanity, and therefore humanity itself. Jesus promoted community and the giving of oneself to others, not the self-promoted greed of John Galt and the elitist heroes of Ayn Rand. Even within conservatism, believing that the individual is the sum of all things is dangerous...at least I believe so."
As I told Ryan, I don't disagree. I'm not an objectivist, nor someone who believes that the individual is the sum of all things. I do, however, appreciate Rand's spot-on commentary on what happens when government over-reaches in the name of the state. In light of recent history of "too big to fail" initiatives, this aspect of her writing (and of the film) is uncanny and scarily prophetic. Ed Morrisey, writing at Hot Air, gets at the timing of everything below:
"It occurred to me last night that this film wouldn’t have resonated nearly as well three years ago, or ten years ago, or perhaps not any time in the 54 years since Rand published the novel. The sense of crisis in the movie would have seemed too far from the experience of most Americans; likewise, the sense of aggressive, populist redistributionism would have looked hyperbolic and contrived. If this isn’t the perfect moment for this film, then it’s as close as I’d like to see it in my lifetime."
Unfortunately, Christianity gets pulled both ways by well-intentioned Christians who believe that either unrestrained capitalism or compulsory socialism is the economy of the Kingdom; neither is correct. John Wesley's view of a healthy capitalism was to "make as much as you can, save as much as you can, give as much as you can" - all three had to be in play for capitalism to be biblical. And an understanding of Acts 2 does not read as New Testament Marxist theory when one understands that Communism saying, "What's yours is mine," is very different from Christianity saying, "What's mine is yours."
The extremes of pure capitalism or pure socialism are both evil, and there's plenty of evidence in the world to support this claim. Whichever extreme of the economic spectrum one may favor, Atlas Shrugged - in book or movie form - should serve as a nuanced critique of both rather than a simplistic rationale for either.
We were on the farm for Labor Day weekend and enjoyed some of the most perfect weather ever for camping out, playing baseball, fishing, swimming, roasting hot dogs, and star gazing from the back of a straw-filled wagon at night. We also had a great time with Mom and Dad hosting friends of theirs from Chicago (of course, Peaches was a huge hit).
As nature's beauty tends to inspire, our 11-year-old ended up writing the first draft of her descriptive paragraphs project about the weekend. Folks, we may have another writer on our hands (though out of curiosity, I went to I Write Like and plugged in the paragraphs below for fun; the analysis came back as "Stephen King," which was a little disturbing, I suppose, but nevertheless a nice title tie-in to the picture above). Enjoy.
"I felt the sharp rocks sting my bare feet as I walked across the gravel driveway that led to the door of my grandparents' house. The feel of the wind made me calm, as the glowing sun shone upon me. My lungs were filled with fresh country air. I could smell the pine trees. I admired the lovely patterns on each and every flower. The smooth blades of grass soothed my aching feet as I skipped across the homemade baseball field that my cousins and I loved.
I heard the birds singing their sweet songs, and the rustle of the breeze as it played between the tall stalks of corn. When I camped outside that night, the cicadas chirped, as the woodpeckers plowed into a tree. It was all a natural lullaby. My aunt and I took a stroll down to the pond where the trees were formed into the most perfect shade. We watched the pond as the ripples of water floated across the surface to the other side. I picked soybeans and snacked all the way home. As I jumped in my van, I stared out the window as the corn waved goodbye."
If you've not yet seen Christopher Nolan's Inception, it's mind-blowing. While I tend to review most films I see in the theater, I'm not sure I have words for this one; thus, I'll borrow this line from columnist Andree Seu's thoughts on the film: "Inception is like The Matrix on LSD." Indeed.
That one guy wrote AND directed this masterpiece is astounding; that this one guy is my age makes me glad that I might see a lot more of his films in the future.
I know I'm gushing, so I'll stop. All I can say is, if you're at all into exciting films that are engaging on an intellectual, philosophical, and even theological level, Inception is something straight out of a dream.
So Megan and I, having been the victim one too many times of AT+T raising our home phone/DSL rates again, have re-entered the fray of trying to figure out the best communications deal out there. If you've done this recently, you know it isn't easy: there are far too many options, and none of them seem all that great bundled together for our particular purposes.
Our particular purposes, I suppose, are part of the problem, but so are the prices. In researching options, I was amazed both at the breadth of what's available as well as what the market is apparently willing to bear per month to subscribe to them. By my estimation, families with a land line, multiple cell phones (say 3-4), 300+ TV channels with multi-channel DVR capabilities, and broadband Internet across multiple computers could be paying as much as $400-$500 per month in fees, which doesn't even include hardware (cell phones, receiving dish or cable installation, computers) costs on the front end.
We currently have a land line, one pay-by-the-minute cell phone ($100 goes about 6 months), antenna television (6 channels), a mid-level (two movies out at a time) NetFlix subscription, and DSL. Add on a subscription to Covenant Eyes for the computers and we now pay about $120 in monthly fees, which we've determined is too much for our budget.
We'd like to find a cheaper land line provider (or drop the land line altogether and bite the bullet financially and philosophically by going to two cell phones), but we can't make the numbers work (and, of course, none of this even deals with the whole television part of the equation, nor the movie rental fee).
How much is too much in this area of communications? And is it really "communications" being talked about, or is our culture's thirst for entertainment - visual, digital, social - behind the willingness to pay ever-increasing amounts of money to ensure access to it?
For the Christian, how does what gets spent on entertainment compare to what gets given to the Kingdom each month? How much is too much/too little? Where's the line and what are the reasons for where it's been drawn (or re-drawn) over the years?
Wrestling through this anew these days. Feel free to add your two cents and share your own communications/entertainment experiences, ideas, and counsel. I'm open like 7-11.
On Friday night, Megan and I had an impromptu date. It had been a while. As the girls were happily occupied at a friend's house up the street (thanks, Erin and company), we went out for Chinese, talked, and then came home to watch Julie & Julia before picking up the girls to play parents again.
If you haven't seen the movie, you might have heard how good it is. Megan especially liked it because it's about so many things she loves: marriage, blogging, cooking, books, and the challenge of juggling those things all at once. The conversations in the film were familiar ones to both of us, as we've struggled with many of the same things Julie and her husband did concerning her art: the absence of time, the constancy of insecurity, the selfishness of narcissism, the fear of rejection, and still the hope of creating something beautiful in the midst of everything else.
For me, the film's storybook ending (literally: Julie Powell's blog gets turned into a book which gets turned into a movie) was about revisiting the hope of being faithful with very little in order to be faithful with much. The perseverance required for Julie's experiment of cooking 524 recipes in 365 days (and then blogging about it for all to read) reminds me of "the good old days" of blogging, when the hope of something happening seemed more possible than it does now, as there seemed so fewer blogs then.
Apparently, though, it does still happen. Just yesterday, I read on Heather Armstrong's blog (I've been a reader for probably five years) about the exclusive development deal she and her husband, Jon, signed with HGTV. I know next to nothing about the network, but apparently lots of people do. While I'm happy for the Armstrongs, it feels like it's the beginning of the end of such transitions (if you'll remember, almost a year ago, I considered whether the potential of the personal blog might be coming to an end).
Sadly, my need for inspiration comes on the heels of yet another rejection of my own writing efforts, this time in the form of an email from an up-and-coming agent I approached a few weeks ago. He writes:
"Thanks for allowing me to review your proposal. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to pass. It’s not that I don’t think this is a good idea or good content. I think it’s fine on both those levels. But these days, with the poor publishing economy, I am having to limit my new clients to only those authors who have established a large national fan base. The larger publishers are insisting on such, since they don’t have the marketing budgets they once did. They want to know that they can sell an immediate 15K or so books to the author’s fan base without having to spend a single marketing dollar. It sucks. But that’s the way it is right now."
Thus, I'm giving thought to what this means (or should) for my publishing future. Do I keep up my occasional attempt to squeeze through a publishing door at least
enough to get someone's attention (even if it's only to look up and ask
me to leave)? Do I swallow my pride and go the self-publishing route, building a grassroots following, and then, if all goes well, take another run at the agents and publishing houses? Or, do I let go of the idea of traditional publishing machine all together and go completely digital, publishing content here (or elsewhere) without getting completely ripped off financially or otherwise?
These are some of the questions I've been asking myself of late, but as of last night's movie, I've added one more to my literary litany of lament:
Megan and I introduced the girls to Grease tonight. In addition to being able to recite every line of dialogue and flawlessly perform "The Hand Jive," Megan also knows each word, syllable, and sound in the finale "We Go Together." Here are the lyrics:
We go together like rama lama lama ke ding a de dinga a dong Remembered forever like shoo bop shoo wadda wadda yipitty boom de boom Chang chang chang-it-ty chang shoo-bop That's the way it should be - wha oooh yeah!
We're one of a kind, like dip di-dip di-dip, doo-bop a doo-bee doo Our names are signed, boog-e-dy boog-e-dy boog-e-dy boog-e-dy, shoo-by doo-wop she-bop Chang chang chang-it-ty chang shoo-bop We'll always be like one, wa-wa-wa-waaa!
When we go out at night and stars are shinin' bright Up in the skies above or at the high school dance Where you can find romance Maybe it might be lo-oh oh oh-oh oh-ove
Ra-ma la-ma la-ma ka ding a da ding de dong Shoo-bop sha wad-da wad-da yipp-it-y boom de boom Chang chang chang-it-ty chang shoo-bop Dip da-dip da-dip doo-wop da doo-bee doo Boog-e-dy boog-e-dy boog-e-dy boog-ed-y Shoo-by doo-wop she-bop Sha-na-na-na-na-na-na-na yip-pit-y boom de boom Ra-ma la-ma la-ma ka ding-a de ding de dong Shoo-bop sha wad-da wad-da yipp-it-y boom de boom Chang chang chang-it-ty chang shoo-bop Dip da-dip da-dip doo-wop da doo-bee doo Boog-e-dy boog-e-dy boog-e-dy boog-e-dy shoo-by doo-wop she-bop Sha-na-na-na-na-na-na-na yip-pit-ty boom de boom A wop ba-ba lu-mop a wop bam boom
We're for each other like a wop ba-ba lu-mop and wop bam boom Just like my brother is sha na na na na na yip-pit-y dip de boom Chang chang chang-it-ty chang shoo-bop We'll always be together - wha oooh yeah!
Folks, if that's not romantic, I don't know what is. Just another reason I'm confident in saying, "We'll always be together" (repeat ad nauseum).
...when Megan bakes cookies and leaves them around for me to pretend to ignore. It's also when we put up a tree and clutter it (and the house) with all things Christmas holiday. Ah, the sights, sounds, smells, and stuff of the season.
But I digress. Lots going on this week. Here's a rundown:
The two-year hostage situation of St. Louis' main east/west artery has ended, as I-64/40 is open again. If all goes according to plan, I should be able to cut 10 minutes off my once-25-minute commute to/from school and seminary, which is exciting. All in all, the process wasn't that bad, but I wouldn't want to do it again anytime soon.
I'm finishing up the fourth and fifth commandments with my Ethics students, as well as the book of Matthew with my New Testament kids this week. Finals are next week, so I've got a few tests to write and more than a few papers and assignments to grade. Glad to be two weeks away from Christmas break.
This week is a big one in terms of finishing my seminary studies for the semester. I have an hour-long group project presentation on Monday, a paper due on Wednesday, and two finals to take by Sunday and then I'm down to my final semester at Covenant (and probably forever, unless some university wants to give me a full-ride to work on a Ph.D.). It will feel really good to finally be finished, both in a week and in five months.
Megan and I are turning in our collective resignation letter to Nick at the Covenant bookstore, with our last day being December 30th (Nick's actually known about it for months, so it's not that big a deal). It was a good year-and-a-half at my first real retail experience, but I've got to make room to coach JV baseball in the spring, so something had to go.
I'm planning to post my 2009 booklist in another week, so check back soon if you're still looking for readable gift ideas. I was initially disappointed in my list this year, but at second glance it's not that bad (though I definitely didn't read as much fiction as I have in the past). Look for it in another few days.
Speaking of books as gifts, TwentySomeone wraps as well at Christmas as at graduation time (just wanted to let you know in case you're still looking for a present for a hard-to-buy-for twentysomething in your life).
And speaking of Christmas, in addition to the obligatory family
roadtrips/celebrations, we're planning to paint another room (dining)
over the holidays and get some time hanging out here at home. We're also looking forward to seeing the movie Up in the Air with George Clooney, as parts were filmed in St. Louis (and some of those parts right here in our little Maplewood community).
Guess that's about it. If you're
in town or passing through over the holidays, come on by - being the introverts that we
are, we might not answer the door, but you'll enjoy the trip.
A friend of mine and I sat through the movie Knowing the other night. While one of the worst movies I've watched in a while (incoherent plot, numerology silliness, Nicolas Cage once again playing Nicolas Cage), the film did serve one purpose: it got us talking about the idea of life on other planets.
Despite my X-Files affections, I tend to doubt that we have neighbors in the universe: other populated worlds aren't mentioned in the Bible, and most scientists say the odds against are just too huge otherwise. Maybe I'm your typical egocentric human, but when astronomer Carl Sagan said that if life didn't exist elsewhere in the universe it would be "an awful waste of space," I guess I feel kind of special.
At the same time, I recognize that just because the Bible doesn't record the existence of life on other planets doesn't mean there isn't. Remember: the Bible is a historical-redemptive narrative, not an all-encompassing science book. And speaking of science, there are plenty of scientists who do not share my doubts, running huge scientific initiatives and spending a boatload of money in hopes of making some kind of contact with other beings.
Despite my doubts, and certainly different from the typical evangelical Christian line, the argument for other life in the universe does seem plausible, if for no other reason than the very nature of God as Creator. But here's the question I think it all comes down to: The Scriptures attest to our fallen nature as created beings, but is that to mean all that is on the Earth or all that is in the entire universe?
The question is important because, while we have the account of God redeeming Earth through Christ, if there are indeed other beings in the universe and the universe is indeed fallen, then was there a plan of salvation for other planets as well? C.S. Lewis believed so, namely that when the Bible talks of "creation," it is in reference to the Earth and not necessarily the universe. From this perspective, the idea of other created beings without need of redemption is possible; we just don't have a record of it.
Thinking about all this is particularly interesting in light of mankind's desire to explore space. Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says that the only way humanity can survive is to figure out how to leave the planet; hence, the importance of the U.S. space program. This, of course, begs the question: If the Earth is the only fallen part of God's creation, what does our going out into a non-fallen universe mean? Does it matter? And what would it be like to meet other creation who are intact in their creation perfection?
This is what I understand Lewis' Space Trilogy
to be about: man
leaves Earth
(called the Silent Planet, as it was cut off from the rest of the
universe because of its evil), to colonize elsewhere in the universe
(Perelandra) among beings not in need of redemption. These innocents, though not fallen
themselves, are nevertheless affected by humans and Earth's evil
before it is all finally resolved in the Siege of Deep Heaven against
the Bent One of Earth. In other words, sinful Earthlings contaminated another part of space which, until their arrival, had not been so. Thankfully, however, good overcame evil.
I've always thought of and understood the Fall applying to all of God's universal creation; thus, I differ with Lewis' premise that creation perfection is alive and well outside the surly bonds of Earth. Having said that, however, if God so chose to redeem other inhabitants of his universal creation, I'm assuming he has both prerogative and means to accomplish his will. In my finite, self-centered self, it's just easier to think about me and Earth, especially since God gave us a record of all he has done for redemption here (not to mention that I have no plans or desire for leaving).
Still thinking on this, but I'll stop for now. Anyone have a more formed/informed thought?
It's 70 degrees today. I'm thinking about getting the bike out and going for a ride. My kids think spring is here already, and I don't have the heart to tell them that the Midwest enjoys playing games with one's weather expectations. They'll find out soon enough, I suppose.
Our younger daughters had a birthday party to attend at the seminary's log cabin this morning, so I volunteered to bring them so I could spend an hour-and-a-half studying at the library. Of all the things I miss most about being a full-time student, studying daily at the library has to be at the top of the list.
Several of my ethics students are coming over for our Sabbath dinner tonight, and I'm really looking forward to hanging out with them. I love everything about these high schoolers - their good-natured senses of humor; the way they get so easily embarrassed; their zeal in engaging with and trying to figure out life. I'm blessed to call them friends as well as students.
Speaking of ethics, as this past week was Spirit Week (may it rest in peace), I treated my kids to a week-long viewing of Pope John Paul II. The film - 180 minutes long - is a really well-done treatment of the former Pope's life, his heart for young people, and his commitment to biblical ethics on a variety of fronts. My students really liked it, and if you've not seen it, it's worth watching.
I lost five whole pounds last week, almost exclusively from changing my diet (i.e. no exercise). I'm avoiding carbs and eating a lot more fruit and fiber, which all seems to be working. On Thursday, we went out to Red Robin for a birthday dinner and I ordered a burger wrapped in nothing more than lettuce (yes, I'm that serious). Encouraged, but I still have twenty-five pounds I'd like to drop.
On Friday night, for old time's sake, Megan and I rented The X-Files: I Want to Believe, the second of two movies based on our all-time favorite television show that ran from 1993-2001 (we have all nine seasons on DVD). Being the X-Philes that we were/are, we caught the midnight show of the movie on the night it came out last July (I wanted both of us to dress up like FBI agents but Megan thought we might be the only dweebs in attendance, which was far from the case), but were disappointed by creator Chris Carter's decision not to develop the government conspiracy story arc that was so key to the weekly episodes and the first movie in 1998. The second movie worked well enough as a monster-of-the-week episode, but that was about it; I didn't even write a review.
Still (and in light of discussion on my recent LOST post), watching the movie a second time last night, I found that it played better than I remembered on the big screen, mostly because of the depth of characters Fox Mulder (played by David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (played by Gillian Anderson). Even without the government conspiracy arc, the personal transitions the characters had made over the nine seasons were still there and went beyond "type" to believable humanity. Granted, the direction wasn't as strong and the plot was plenty morbid (think Frankenstein meets organ trafficking), but the humanity of the lead characters really stood out, which made it that much more watchable.
So, if anybody's looking for a new DVD fetish with real characters that actually change and grow over time, let me recommend The X-Files. The stories are well-written, the science is fascinating, and the tension of the modern world trying to make sense of what cannot always be made sense of is a healthy one.
A thought crossed my mind this week that I'll throw out to see if it sticks. For many of you, this may fall in the "I could care less" category, but since I spend a majority of my time with teenagers, I'm interested.
It seems to me there's a major generational shift going on in the teen entertainment business. For instance, earlier this week, the MTV show TRL (Total Request Live) took a final bow after ten years of attracting the "biggest and hottest recording artists, actors and celebrities on most weekday afternoons," all while playing "the most iconic videos of the day." For better or for worse, a majority of the boy bands, pop tarts, and rappers of the past ten years got a whole lot of promotion via TRL, a fact wonderfully and cynically documented in the 2001 movie (not the 70s TV show) Josie and the Pussycats, one of my favorite commentaries on the youth culture of the time.
But that's not all that makes me think about a shift occurring. This weekend, the movie Twilight - teen romance with unfortunate vampire issues - comes out, and the teen world all over will be filling theaters for weeks on end tomorrow to see it. I was intrigued by a comment one of the girls in my class made when, commenting on the "hot or not" looks of the movie's Edward character (Jane Austen fans, imagine a teenage Mr. Darcy with fangs), she said, "He's not even really that cute. All the cute guys - with the exception of Zac Ephron - are older."
Hmmm.
Finally, I don't know if anyone's seen the trailer for J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek movie, but there's nary a recognizable face among the actors playing the new (and young - very young) versions of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, et. al. Granted, Abrams' name is the draw (he of Aliasand Lost fame), but with him at the helm, it's interesting there isn't more familiar young "star power" (notice I didn't say "talent") attached.
Is something going on here? Anyone have any thoughts, or am I just spending too much time with high schoolers? My interest is not in the fact that I'm getting older (I know that already), but in the fact that the youth culture of recent years seems to be.
As it's rare for me to see a movie in the theater within a week of its opening, I thought I'd celebrate the occasion by posting some actual thoughts here on The Dark Knight. For the sake of not spoiling things, I'll try to refrain from plot details and instead focus on some of the mental gymnastics it takes to follow the movie.
This is a very complex film - the most of any superhero movie to date. A lot of folks raved about the emotional depth of the Spider-Man movies, but The Dark Knight asks questions that go far beyond Peter Parker's personal struggle in figuring out his responsibility to his power; as other reviewers have noted, The Dark Knight is a morality play that poses huge questions about the nature of humanity and asks the audience to share responsibility in answering them.
The dominant perspective is the Joker's. While Heath Ledger's performance is indeed intoxicating, what I think audiences are really responding to is Ledger's portrayal of the Joker's horrifying authenticity in living so consistently by his belief that anarchy is the only logical response to a world that does not make sense:
"Do I really look like a man with a plan, Harvey? I don't have a plan. The mob has plans, the cops have plans. You know what I am, Harvey? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. I just do things. I'm a wrench in the gears. I hate plans. Yours, theirs, everyone's. Maroni has plans. Gordon has plans. Schemers trying to control their worlds. I am not a schemer. I show schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are...Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair."*
The exception to the chaos, of course, is Batman (Christian Bale), who, though flawed, manages to make choices that go against his human nature. Still, Bruce Wayne (Batman's alter ego) wants out of the Batman business, as it seems the cause of - rather than the solution to - the problem of freaks like the Joker coming out of the woodwork. Eventually, Wayne comes to understand (with the help of Alfred and others) that a flawed Batman is better than no Batman at all, but it takes some time (and a little melodrama at the end) to reach that conclusion:
"Bruce: People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?
Alfred: Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. He'll hate you for it. But that's the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the righteous.
Bruce: Well today I found out what Batman can't do. He can't endure this. Today you finally get to say 'I told you so.'
Alfred: Today, sir, I don't want to."*
Serving as a composite of sorts of the Joker and Batman is Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent, Gotham City's new District Attorney. Not much has been made of Eckhart's role in the film, but his seems the key to understanding the movie, particularly at the end after he becomes the coin-flipping, fate-tempting Two-Face. Up to that point, Dent represents an unblemished hope of law and order for Gotham City citizens ("a white knight" of justice as opposed to Batman's "dark knight" of vigilantism); however, between tragedy and timely coaching - both at the hands of the Joker - Dent resorts to playing the blame game with fate:
"You (Commissioner Gordon) thought we could be decent men in an indecent world. But you were wrong; the world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance."*
In many ways (and without trying to overanalyze things too much), The Dark Knight looks at the world through three lenses: the anarchy of the Joker (frightening in its degradation); the fatalism of Two-Face (depressing in its meaninglessness); and the brokenness of Batman (frustrating in its reality). One of these is how most of us tend to live life, and The Dark Knight provides an intriguing look at where and how these paths diverge and - when played out to their logical extremes - eventually end up. The question left for the audience to answer is, of course, which to choose?
Christopher Nolan's direction is seamless, well-paced, and engaging; you forget you're watching a movie.
Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, Michael Caine as Alfred, and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox are always easy to watch; they bring acting credibility and great presence to the big screen.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is an improvement over Katie Holmes in the role of Rachel Dawes; the role itself, however, comes off more inspiring to the motivation of the romantically-involved characters (Wayne, Dent) than it really should be, which doesn't ring as true as the rest of the film.
I don't think it's just because I've spent time there, but using Chicago as Gotham City was really distracting; Gotham City needs a darker, more New York kind of feel.
The lack of dependence on CGI for many of the action scenes and stunts was refreshing and made the movie more realistic; there was really only one scene (the extraction in Hong Kong) that I felt required too much suspension of belief.
Though I always liked (a lot) the arrangements of the original Batman movie soundtrack by Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer builds good suspense at just the right times; plus, I love the rich, bold sound of the trombones in his theme swells.
Overall the movie (2-1/2 hours) feels just a little long, but I'm not sure what I'd cut; it takes that kind of time to tell this kind of story.
For those who've seen it, what would you add/delete/change?
It's been a long while since I've posted some linkage, so in light of it being Friday, here you go:
We're still in need of about $1,000 for our home closing (in four days), so if you've yet to take advantage of our $10 Gets You 15 Songs deal, now is the time.
In case you're wondering, Megan thinks she's losing it (but she's really doing okay).
My friend, Jeff Morrison, sent me a link to the Breathe 2008 conference he's leading at Glen Eyrie next month. Between Jeff's heart and abilities in worship and the beauty of the place, this will be a good conference for all involved.
Looking for a new bike? Consider (or don't) the vicious cycle. (hat tip: Coudal)
A few weeks ago, a post in which I wrote on gay marriage got quite a bit of traffic and discussion. In the midst of the interactions, some important questions came up pertaining to my use of the Bible as the basis for my thinking.
For instance, escapethedrain wrote in comment #2:
"If you are using the bible to prove your point that homosexuality is wrong, then you also have to include the scripture that says:
(1 Tim. 2:12)
'Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.'
(Lev 19.18b)
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.'
Do you believe in this as well? I am interested in your response."
In addition, transientreporter wrote in comment #3:
"Mull over this:
(Deuteronomy 13:7-11)
'If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known,gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the LORD, your God…'
The bible is a deeply ugly book."
I summed up the tensions (see comment #5) as being 1) the use of ancient Scripture (Old and New Testaments) to address modern issues, and 2) the brutality of the Bible. While I'm not sure if the two readers who asked the questions are still reading (thanks for sticking around if you are), I promised to try to address their questions, so I will (though it's going to take a couple of posts to do it - hang with me).
Let me start with an illustration. As part of the recent build-up to the new Indiana Jones movie (which I've still yet to see), Slate ran a review that started with this:
"If some 32nd-century archeologist were to unearth a DVD copy of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Paramount), her first task—after converting the barbaric early digital technology to a more current brain-wave-based viewing system—would be to understand what this object meant to the culture that created it...Though it's a scholar's job to shed her 32nd-century prejudices and understand the belief systems of those long dead, our archeologist will have to ask herself: What were these scribes thinking?"
When I read this, I thought immediately of our recent discussion. It's true: many aspects of the Bible can seem foreign to us because of where we are (or aren't) historically in relation to them. However, we aren't being fair to the Scripture (or to any ancient text) if we approach it with our 21st-century prejudices.
For instance, I just finished reading Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. Make no mistake, Dawkins is a good writer, but listen for the modern bias in his take (found on page 269 in case anyone's following along) on the beginning of the Old Testament:
"Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well."
Dawkins continues:
"Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the athiest's decision, without an absolute foundation."
Dawkins then dismisses the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19 and the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19 before starting in on the New Testament and questioning Jesus' "somewhat dodgy family values" (page 284).
For the record, I agree with Dawkins that, unfortunately, there are plenty of theologians who don't take Genesis literally any more, but I am not one of them. This doesn't (or shouldn't) make me a flaming fundamentalist by default; I do not read Genesis as a science book anymore than I read Song of Songs as a recipe. I read Genesis as narrative and Song of Songs as poetry, for reading either as something they're not does not respect their genres as literature, which, in my mind, is as big a problem for fundamentalists as a figurative-only reading.
But I digress.
My point is that Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist) gives little to no consideration to the first basic rule of hermeneutics (interpretation) - that is, we have to understand an author's intent as well as the needs of the author's first readers to rightly understand the text. Dawkins seems only interested in picking apart the text; likewise, if any reader does not interact with ancient writings beyond their words, then she is not playing by the rules of good exegesis.
So, getting back to the questions above, what was the Apostle Paul's intent and his audience's needs that caused him to write about women and submission? What were Moses' purposes and the needs of the nation (not the state) of Israel that led him to encourage loving one's neighbor in Leviticus and, at the same time, punish his neighbor so violently if he enticed him to forsake God? We have to try to get as close to these original intents and audiences before we can begin figuring out what (if any) meaning these passages have now.
Westminster didn't have school last Friday as we teachers had a teacher in-service during which we watched the short film, Two Million Minutes. Here's the spiel:
"Regardless of nationality, as soon as a student completes the 8th grade, the clock starts ticking. From that very moment the child has approximately Two Million Minutes until high school graduation…Two Million Minutes to build their intellectual foundation…Two Million Minutes to prepare for college and ultimately career…Two Million Minutes to go from a teenager to an adult."
While I bristle at the melodrama of the last few lines, I was intrigued by the film's goal:
"This film takes a deeper look at how the three superpowers of the 21st Century - China, India and the United States - are preparing their students for the future. As we follow two students - a boy and a girl - from each of these countries, we compose a global snapshot of education, from the viewpoint of kids preparing for their future."
As you might imagine, American students come out on the short end of the stick compared to the Asian work ethic and commitment to academics instead of extra-/co-curriculars. The film exploits the stereotypes a bit as a whole, but the American students from Carmel, Indiana don't necessarily fight the typecasting (the arrogance is almost too much to take).
Some interesting quotes and notes from the film:
Nearly 40% of U.S. high school students do not take any science class more challenging than general biology.
55% do not take any math courses beyond two years of algebra and one year of geometry.
70% of parents think their child's high school is teaching the right amount of math and science.
79% of high school principals say they are not worried about low academic standards.
American students score highly in one area relative to their international peers: self-confidence.
A few more:
66% of college-bound high school seniors have no more than one hour of homework per night and none on weekends.
110 million students in China are studying English.
50,000 American students are studying Chinese.
Nearly 60% of engineering PhD degrees awarded annualy in the United States are earned by foreign nationals.
In the comments on my last post, the discussion took a turn and ended up on The X-Files and the upcoming second movie, due out July 25th. I'm geared up for the flick, though I have no idea why they're apparently letting go of the government conspiracy arc and dealing only with the paranormal; still, as long as Mulder and Scully are back, count me in (we own every season on DVD, and watched one episode a night last year to reconnect with our TV counterparts).
Back in the glory days of The X-Files, I had an idea for an episode in which Mulder and Scully were chosen to participate in and test the ultimate Witness Protection Program. The gimmick? Those in the program were unaware of their involvement in it, thanks to a combination of drugs, relocation, and cover-up. It could have been a cool idea, but later that same season, there was an episode in which Mulder and Scully went undercover as a married couple, so my screenplay would have seemed redundant after that.
Still, for your enjoyment, here's the intro to my episode; let me know what you think. (Note to X-Files creator, Chris Carter: Have your people call my people; I'm in the book.)
(Fade up. Mulder, gun in hand, is slowly making his way through a dark, foggy factory strangely reminiscent of those seen in previous episodes. As he rounds a corner, he sees a door with a bright light coming from underneath it.)
(Making his way to the door, he opens it to find he is standing at the end of a long aisle in a well-lit church with people looking back at him from all sides. Soft organ music is playing in the background. As he considers the scene, a little girl waves to him from the last pew and he raises his left hand sheepishly to wave back. In doing so, he notices the gold ring on his left hand, and is dumbfounded.)
(The music continues and all the attendants and congregants are looking away from him, sharing his stare at the dark back door of the church. Nervous and a little uncomfortable, he continues to look around, again catching the eye of the same little girl in the pew who smiles and waves again. He again waves back, unsure of what he’s doing here or who this girl is.)
(Suddenly, the door at the end of the aisle opens, and whispers of excitement travel through the crowd. There in the doorway in proper tuxedo attire is the Cigarette-Smoking Man serving as the father of the bride, Scully, all aglow with the glory of the day.)
(Mulder, visibly shaken, scans the room trying to figure out what is going on. While doing this, he becomes distracted by a stuck key steadily pulsing from the organ. Mulder turns back to the crowd, now wearing all black and looking directly at him with dull expressions, except for the one little girl in back waving at Mulder. As he looks up the aisle, he sees Scully and the Cigarette-Smoking Man are nowhere to be found, and the heavy, dark door begins to close.)
(Mulder, frightened that Scully’s gone, begins running toward the back door. As he does so, the pulse of the broken organ grows louder and louder, and the crowd of black-clothed people converge on the aisle zombie-like, preventing him from making his way to the back. Finally, the pulse of the organ is so unbearable in his ears...)
(Mulder wakes up in a warm, decorated, sunlit bedroom, realizing that the pulse of the organ was really his alarm clock going off. He fumbles to turn off the alarm, sits up straight, and takes a deep breath, glad to be out of the dream. Understanding what just happened (ie. that he was dreaming), he shakes his head and begins to get out of bed.)
(Just before he walks off to take a cold shower and begin the day, he sentimentally turns back and kneels on the bed with one knee to bend over and plant a quick kiss on the cheek of his still-sleeping bed partner, Scully, who responds to his affection with a half-asleep sigh. Mulder smiles as he walks past a framed (and dated) picture of their wedding day, flips the light in the bathroom, and turns on the shower while the camera zooms in on the picture of the newly wedded couple, then fades to black.)
THEME SONG & OPENING CREDITS TAG LINE: "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE"
I am really excited about Ben Stein's upcoming (February) movie, Expelled. I'm planning to show the trailer to all three of my Ethics classes today, as we were just talking yesterday about humanism being the religion du jour of higher academia (with Darwinian evolution its off-limits-to-inspection gospel) .
The website is clever and the movie looks informative and quirky. I'm hoping some good comes of it and that the intelligent design movement will benefit somehow as a result.
Some other links today:
Glad to see Michael Vick repent and take some responsibility for his actions, but I'm not sure his "I will redeem myself" comment convinces me he gets it just yet (then again, I'm not sure I always do, either).
In the meantime, here's a brief summary along with a few thoughts of my own on the film:
Christian Bale plays Dieter Dengler, an American who naively signs up with the Navy to "just fly planes," but instead gets sent on a secret mission to bomb targets in Laos during the Vietnam Conflict. Dengler's plane gets shot down and he is captured, enduring plenty of hardship along the way. The rest of the movie focuses on his interactions with a handful of other POWs and their quest to survive and eventually escape.
The plot is familiar and includes much of what you might expect from a movie about Vietnam - lots of jungle, plenty of hungry people (both American and Vietnamese), and rain. Unfortunately, there was little new to add to one's understanding of Vietnam (which was disappointing coming from documentary filmmaker Werner Herzog) and very little character development as to who Dengler and his fellow prisoners really are (other than prisioners).
I went in to the movie with high hopes of seeing a really great performance from Christian Bale (who I really like as an actor), but I'm not sure I saw anything particularly exceptional. In general, Bale is best the darker things get, and his overly-optimistic portrayal of Dengler (especially early on) seemed forced. Still, his intensity was good, and he endured some pretty nasty stuff to play the part, so those are points in my book.
I was, however, blown away by the performances of prisoners Jeremy Davies as "Eugene from Eugene (OR)" and Steve Zahn as "Dwayne," who I thought stole the show. Davies essentially starved himself in real life to play the incredibly gaunt (and semi-delusional) Eugene, and Zahn was brilliantly fragile peering out through emotional eyes from behind his overgrown beard and hair. Possible Oscar for best supporting actor? I'd say Zahn could be in the running.
Those are some of my initial observations. I'll turn it over to the guys and see what they think.
Sorry for the late notice, but I've got six complimentary tickets left for a special screening of Rescue Dawn tonight. If you're in the St. Louis area and would like to go, you'll need to meet me outside the movie theater at 6:45 p.m. (the show starts at 7:30, but has been overbooked to ensure a full house). First commenters below get the tix (limit 2 per person); snooze you lose.
In other movie news, Travis made me giddy with anticipation last night by sending me this link about a possible X-Files movie in 2008. Oh, how I so want to believe.
Recent Comments