If I were a Christian filmmaker/scriptwriter

WN asked me today: if I was a Christian filmmaker/scriptwriter, what sort of film would I make? He caught me off-guard and I had to say I didn't know. So here's an attempt at an answer. This isn't new, but it's worth restating.

Firstly, every person and every culture has a Big Story, one in which they both shape and are shaped by. Within this Big Story there might be many sub-plots. However, the movement in each of these stories will include in some form creation-fall-redemption-restoration. Any story will seek an answer, explicitly or implicitly, to the well-known four questions posed by Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh:

1. Who am I? Or what is the nature, task, and purpose of human beings?
2. Where am I? Or What is the nature of the world and universe we live in?
3. What's wrong? Or what is the basic problem or obstacle that keeps me from obtaining fulfillment?
4. What is the remedy? How do I solve this problem or where do I find salvation?

This includes films. It could be said, in fact, that films are one of the primary ways in which people attempt to make sense of their place in the world today. Whether they ponder over a so-called weighty film or simply seek solace in a light-hearted comedy, they are still in some way engaging in the task of sense-making. Every film, in summary, offers a vision of what the world is like, and how the world ought to be.

The Christian filmmaker or scriptwriter is aware that his faith claims to have the True Story. We understand that we are to understand humanity in light of God and of sin, and we know where redemption is to be found. Therefore, "it follows that storytellers in our Christian community carry a major responsibility for keeping us alert to these stories and the way they work." (Eugene Peterson). This is because stories can grab us in ways mere arguments can't, and stories always reveal something about their creators. "We feel the emotions, get caught up in the drama, identify with the characters, see into nooks and crannies of life that we had overlooked, realize there is more to this business of being human tan we had yet explored. If the storyteller is good, doors and windows open." (Peterson) So if I were a Christian film-maker or scriptwriter, then I must offer a vision of how the world is like, and how it ought to be, in line with a Christian worldview.

But how I go about that is up to me and my (imagined!) creativity! The possibilities are vast. Think of some recent films. The Dark Knight, for example, might seem to be the antithesis of what a Christian film-maker should offer, but one of the things the film does so effectively is offer a very chilling vision, via the Joker, of what a world ruled by chance and randomness rather than God would look like. This is not to claim that the Dark Knight is a "Christian" movie. Nonetheless, it is extremely effective at jolting us out of our complacency and opening our eyes to the hideousness of a fallen world. Any script that can do that is worth exploring, although I would never allow it to fall into a hopeless cesspool of despair. If in Genesis 3, God himself already offers hints of hope (v.15), then surely we should do the same.

But a Christian filmmaker doesn't have to be so "arty". I think one sort of film I might like to make is a romantic comedy which doesn't envision the partner as the saviour who "makes me whole". That would be incredibly counter-cultural. If it's done well, I think that would have a bigger impact than some "weighty" film. What the viewer of such a film will encounter is the truth that even Mr. or Mrs. Right can't function as your redeemer. What would be great too is a film that celebrates marriage, as most recently Fireproof does, given the dominant image of marriage in films to be dowdy and "a trap". [Spoiler alert] I can't remember much of the film Forces of Nature, but I do remember the ending, where the main character chooses to go back to his marriage partner instead of making off with his fling. That came as a genuine shock. I don't remember the rest of the film being very good, but if it had been better executed, then I can imagine that ending carrying a real poignancy and weight about it. [end spoiler alert]

Does a Christian filmmaker need to make an explicitly "Christian" film, i.e one in which the gospel is proclaimed? Well, they could. I would love to see a film with actual characters with an evangelical faith, not cardboard stereotypes, and if I were a good film-maker, I would love to explore such a character. But I don't think a Christian film-maker necessarily needs to do so. A film should rest on the foundational biblical storyline, and perhaps show the weaknesses of an alternative storyline, but it doesn't always have to be about the climax of that storyline (the gospel event). We could show the beauty in the everyday, in the nature of true friendship, for example. I'm thinking of something like The Station Agent. Or the nature of true sacrifice in some epic. And so on.

I suppose there's plenty more to be said, but hopefully that provides the beginnings of an answer!

You can also browse some of my previous posts on films


† Expand post

15Malaysia

Happy National Day Malaysia!

Old news for those back home, but I have enjoyed the 15 Malaysia project, a collection of short films (about 3-6 minutes each) by some of the nation's leading artists highlighting the joys and frustrations of Malaysia and Malaysians. Pete Teo, one of our singer-songwriters, was apparently one of the prime movers. One video is being released every few days. They include some unexpected figures!

You can also check them out on Youtube.

The world of the Dark Knight

...Spoiler alert...

One of the bonuses of going home last month was getting to see The Dark Knight for free on the plane, having been one of the few who missed it during the summer. It's an excellent film, although it certainly does live up to its dark moniker. I'm not going to be showing it to my hypothetical kids anytime soon, and I see why giving it a mere 12A rating stirred the pot a little here in the UK.

I really wished I had written down some of my thoughts while they were still fresh, so I'm afraid I'm only serving up the leftovers.

A good question to ask of any cultural/artistic piece is what it assumes about the way the world is, or to put it another way: what is not possible in this imagined world? Fantasy novels and films foreground this question since we usually know upfront we're entering a different universe, but any piece of work makes decisions about the shape of reality. Mills&Boons novels, for eg., make plain that their worlds must end in a neat, happy ending.

As such, I was intrigued (and actually, a little disturbed) by Gotham, and specifically, what sort of world it was: a world in which there is no Universal Authority, no Supreme Being. Let me unpack that a little. This isn't to say the movie is explicitly spouting some atheistic pseudophilosophy, but simply because of the way it's set up, with the Joker the centre of gravity in this film. One of the reasons the Joker is such a frightening figure is because he delights in anarchy, or as Alfred puts it: he "...doesn't play by the rules. Some people just want to see the world burn." In some ways, he reminds me of what Samuel Coleridge said of Iago in Shakespeare's Othello, that he was a "motiveless malignity". The Joker doesn't play by any principles (except maybe nihilistic ones), and so fears no consequences. There's no boundary he isn't willing to cross. And how do you stop someone like that? The Joker knows it, and he constantly dares Batman to stoop to his level. Where do you draw the line, Batman? Be a mask-wearing vigilante and risk the lives of foolish copycats? Break international law on wire-tapping, but not kill the Joker? Who are you going to save, Batman? Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes? The Joker, with his tactics, poses the question of just how different Batman is from him, just with more (unnecessary?) restraint.

And part of the reason the Joker can do so is because well, Batman isn't God. He's not omnipresent or omniscient. Sure, he's Gotham's superhero, but he doesn't possess supreme insight in knowing what's the right path to take. He isn't able to enforce justice all the time or rescue every individual. It's a responsibility too big even for him to bear. Batman depends on society retaining some cohesion - that people will generally trust each other, be good citizens, etc. while he cleans up around the edges. What happens, though when such social cohesion begins to unravel? The Joker, with his pessimistic views on human nature, is seeking precisely to do just that. He appeals to humanity's self-interestedness. So, he announces the mayor (was it the mayor? I don't quite remember) has to die, or he blows up the hospital. Cue the mob.

Time and time again, the Joker forces the good guys into impossible moral decisions, and for me, exposed the hollowness of a morality independent of God. Why should Batman play by the rules? Why shouldn't the people on one ferry blow up the other? Why shouldn't we applaud the Joker when he kills other mobsters? And why shouldn't Batman be right in the end when he decides that "truth isn't good enough?" If the world in which Batman and Joker and Harvey Dent populate is ruled only by chance, then there's no reason to look out for others beyond pious platitudes about goodness. The Joker says, "you know the thing about chaos? It's fair." That's a truly frightening world.

But if God does exist, then the world isn't so bleak any longer. The prospect of final justice in the hands of a all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just God allows us to turn the other cheek and not take the path of a vengeance-fueled Harvey Dent. The Christian story in particular means that we can be relieved of trying to play Saviour, a burden none of us, even Batman, can bear. It also means that even in a world where seeming randomity still strikes, and the likes of the Joker roam about, we can actually have a deep-seated security that transcends surface appearances. And the Dark Knight, bleak as it is, isn't willing to depict a completely amoral world. The resolution of the ferry scene is one much needed gulp of air for the audience, as is Commissioner Gordon, and to a lesser extent Lucius Fox, whom the movie relies on as one/two fixed moral point(s) amidst constantly shifting ground.

Thank God we don't live in the world of the Dark Knight.

Prince Caspian: The Verdict

This post full of spoilers, although I doubt it matters.

I finally got round to watching Caspian last night. I've previously written on the Caspian film and the mixed reaction to it. Knowing that the film had taken plenty of liberties with the story turned out to be a good thing, as it meant that I went in with appropriate expectations and took the movie on its own terms. And I did enjoy it, although my friend, who did not know about the changes beforehand, was pretty disappointed. So, updates on my previous thoughts:

• When I first saw Georgie Henley in the first film, I thought she was too young to be Lucy; she turned out to be just about the best thing in LWW. It's the same here, it's a great delight to know that such a winning character is being portrayed so well (even if she still looks a little too young!)
  
• Fear of mischaracterisation #1: Reepicheep. Verdict: Relieved. I was so afraid that Reepicheep had been turned into the rodent version of Shrek's Donkey, but actually I think they got him largely right. Perhaps there should be a touch more chivalry in his speech mannerisms, but that's a minor quibble.
  
• I liked that they fleshed out Miraz's lords more. At first, I thought that they were perhaps even planting seeds for Voyage of the Dawn Treader (in that book, we discover that Miraz has been up to shenanigans concerning some of the Narnian lords), but even though they didn't go down that direction, I think that was a good eg. of how additions in a film adaptation can help the story.
  
• Trufflehunter and Nikabrik were also portrayed correctly, although they aren't hard to cast; the former being the calm voice of reason, the latter impatient and devious.
  
• Fear of mischaracterisation #2: Trumpkin. Verdict: Disappointed, although it wasn't as bad as feared. Trumpkin is a skeptic. He's naturally pessimistic. He's gruff. But underneath all that, you know he's loyal and he's good. I think he's the most complicated character of the trio (the other two being the above) but still... The fault lay in how they changed the way he's introduced. He's not skeptical that old Narnia existed, just bitter in the belief that his Narnian forbearers abandoned them. It's a big disappointment that we don't get to see the ironic scene where Trumpkin fails to recognise that he has found the very help he's sought! They correct his character somewhat in the 2nd half of the film, for instance where he supports Lucy as they cross the river. But it's too little too late. When Susan and Lucy call him their "DLF", unlike in the book, it was not believable. The ending scene where Trumpkin bows before Aslan is impotent because unlike in the book, we get no sense that Trumpkin was previously doubtful of Aslan, his majesty and his power.
  
• Another change - Susan's horn in the book is meant only to be able to call for help, but it doesn't specify what kind of help would arrive. In the film, it's specifically meant to be able to call the Penvensies back. It's a subtle change, but I think it does change the texture of the story somewhat: the form of help received comes predetermined, whereas in the book, the "New" Narnians just wasn't sure what to expect.
  
• I liked the interchange between the Penvensies, it really felt like they were siblings.
  
• Arguably the biggest disapppointment of the night: the pivotal scene where Lucy believes she sees Aslan where the others don't is given short shrift here. In the book, the rest begin to see Aslan one by one, and Peter humbles himself before Aslan, telling him: "Oh Aslan, I've been leading them all wrong."
  
• They played up the tension between Peter and Caspian in the book more. It's there in the book as well, but doesn't feature so much, probably because of the penitential scene that I just mentioned above. As I've also mentioned before, I don't actually mind that they did this, but it's a shame that it meant that they cut the scene above. In playing this up, though, I do feel it had a significant effect on the contours of the film's narrative, eg. the cutting of the scene above and setting the stage for the entirely uncanonical storming of the castle.
  
• It also involved changing the scene where Nikabrik conjures up the White Witch, but although on one level I would have preferred the original, I did like the way they did this scene, with Edmund destroying the source of temptation, and Peter's formerly obscured view of Aslan coming starkly into view.
  
• The romance between Caspian and Susan wasn't too bad either - it was kept to a minimum and seemed to be there purely on the grounds of pleasing some higher-ups who deem that a romance angle is necessary to please the audience.
  
• I've been talking about disappointing scenes; well, I was really pleased with the one-to-one fight between Miraz and Peter. That's exactly how I pictured it.
  
• Caspian, I think, also suffered a little from the Trumpkin treatment. Because we don't get to see his sessions with Professor Cornelius, we fail to get a better-rounded picture of him. Apart from being the wronged heir, do we really get a sense of what makes him tick?
  
• Aslan doesn't get too much airtime, but most of his lines do at least survive intact. I thought I wouldn't like the dream sequence, but now I'm more agnostic about it - it dosn't detract as much from the story as the Lucy seeing Aslan scene.
  
• Ultimately, I think the film does suffer a bit from what I shall call the LOTR Syndrome. In its haste to get to the big climatic battle scenes, they sacrificed bits of characterization and story. Now the book does have a big climatic battle at the end (more so, I thought, than LWW), so I don't mind that payoff. But Narnia is not LOTR. Do we really need that castle-storming scene?
  
• But I did enjoy the movie. And I'm a bit of a sucker for hopeful, uplifting songs that manipulatetug at your emotions when it's time for the happy ending. I've been unable to get Regina Spektor's 'The Call' out of my head today. Isn't this song begging for that crescendo, complete with backing orchestra? :-p
  
  

P/S I reread Steven Greydanus's review after watching the film and it's still the best thing out there.

PP/S I wrote all of the above things without having the benefit of the book near me so am recalling entirely from memory. Tell me if I've got something wrong!

PPP/S Maybe I'll bump into Anna Popplewell (Susan) when I'm in Oxford! (She's currently studying Eng Lit at Magdalen, coincidentally, C.S Lewis' old college).


† Expand post

Movies and convictions

I've just finished listening to a fantastic podcast from the folks over at Christ and Pop Culture. They discuss the recent controversy over the Sex and the City review posted at Christianity Today, but it's a great listen even for those who aren't interested in or haven't followed this particular maelstrom. As I've said before, it's not so much SatC but the attitudes of Christians towards culture (not that any of us can ever escape from our cultural context) which interests me and this podcast is particularly thoughtful on that front.

What they do so well is to show where both sides of the debate have got it right, and wrong. Along the way, they helpfully address the important contextual questions of audience and reception and what to expect from a movie review. This takes up about 2/3s of the podcast, and the remaining 1/3 is dedicated to helping us think through whether or not we should see a particular movie. More than that, I thought that they showed a keen awareness of the Pauline distinction between Scriptural areas of command and personal areas of conviction and applied it very well. This is a big theme in Paul's writings and touches not only on films but on many other parts of life so it's good that it was at the very least implicit throughout their discussion. Definitely worth a listen. (45 mins)

SatC and the question of cultural engagement

CT's review of Sex and the City has provoked something of a storm, with Ted Slater of Boundlessline going as far as hyperbolically attacking them for relishing sexual perversion. Now I'm not exactly the target demographic for this show, having never watched a single episode, and I don't plan to change that. Actually, what I'm interested in here is not Sex and the City, but rather that this debate has once again raised questions of what cultural engagement looks like. I occasionally write book and film reviews on this blog, and I've always wanted to sketch out a little of how I engage as a Christian with things like these, especially after my post on Philip Pullman. Rather than lay out anything comprehensive at this point, I just thought I'll lay out a few basic points, and then maybe speak a little about this particular debate with these points in mind.

1. It is clear that Scripture gives us freedom on a number of issues. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind the weaker brother/sister in love. To slightly adapt a biblical example, I might not think that eating idol food has any consequences because of my belief that God is the one true living God, I might refrain if I think a Christian brother or sister who sees me doing that as a result, might struggle.

2. On the flip side, there is the opposite danger in which a Christian insists on a certain ritual/rule/prohibition that becomes normative for all Christians, and thus falls into the trap of legalism. Circumcision would be the obvious eg. in the NT. Paul got really worked up about this because he saw that it posed a real threat to the gospel. A contemporary eg. in some circles might be alcohol: either you're teetotal or you're not really a Christian.

3. I approach books/films/other cultural artifacts worldviewishly, which I find is a much more helpful angle to take. Instead of simply asking: is this morally good or bad (which are not wrong questions in themselves, but don't often lead very far because films and literature tend to be complex), it's far better to ask worldview questions of it. How does the film conceive of ultimate reality? Does it describe our own experience of the world? What does it say about the director's own views? What questions or issues are raised? Are there "true truths", i.e truths which Christians can agree on, here? Do you feel like the film has given you any true insights into the world, or has it just felt depressing/a cheap shot/etc.? How does the Christian faith speak into this particular situation or setting?

4. This doesn't mean we can justify going to watch any movie - the Bible does talk about fleeing from immorality. But it also recognises that different people struggle with different things, and we should also take into account things like maturity and stage of life. Some people are more astute cultural critics than others, and that should be taken into account as well. We should be equipping Christians to engage with culture better.

One of the basic issues in this debate is that different people have different expectations from a film review from an evangelical publication. Since I regularly read CT reviews, I get the sense that the editors don't want to babysit you and so will not tell you what or what not to watch, but I think a large swath of readers wanted something more prescriptive: watch/don't watch this movie! In some ways, the reviewer also treated her review as somewhat of a personal essay, which is not necessarily something wrong; lots of film reviewers like Ebert do it.

Having said all that, I am actually in basic sympathy with those who oppose the movie. I think Camerin Courtney could have been more careful with her words and should have done better at pointing out the immorality in the movie beyond "There's a threesome." But I'm not sure Ted Slater's initial riposte was all that helpful. The best response is actually from Carolyn McCulley. It's thoughtful and frames the issues much better. But the point of this post isn't really about who's right or who's wrong, but the way we think these things through - it's not just the conclusion that counts in this case, but how we get there.

Bear in mind I'm not trying to be comprehensive here, but am just making a couple of points. If you want a (very much imperfect) eg. of how I try to engage worldviewishly with culture, have a look at my review of Kate Winslet's Little Children.


† Expand post

Caspian, adaptation, summation, disappointment?

I've been seeing very mixed reviews on Prince Caspian so far. Granted, I've been reading mainly the Christian reviewers I respect (Overstreet, Chattaway, Greydanus) rather than the more mainstream ones but given this is Narnia after all...

Anyway, in a nutshell, people are generally agreed that as a piece of filmmaking, it's actually pretty good, and even superior to the first instalment. Some are even prepared to say that it improves on the original plotline. I was interested to discover that Caspian seems to be regarded as the weakest of the Narnia books. I suppose it is true that in terms of the pacing of the book, it isn't always the best: lots of travelling and exposition. But thematically it's as rich as any other Narnia book, especially in the way it treats memory and maturity. Think of how the Penvensies must remember who they really are in Narnia (they even take a while to realise they're in Narnia!), how the recollection of Old Narnia sustains the hopes of those who oppose Miraz, Edmund's willingness to believe Lucy this time around (cf. Lion, Witch & Wardrobe), and perhaps more indirectly, the way the book itself is structured: extensive flashbacks, a travel narrative that mirrors the coming-of-age of the characters.

But I digress. The big question is: how faithful should the film be to the book, or perhaps a better question is, what counts as a faithful adaptation? How you answer this question will determine your reaction to the cinematic version. I suspect that if you don't care about the book there's no problem at all. [SPOILER ALERT follows for those who want to know absolutely nothing about the film] According to reviews I've been reading, here are some of the changes:

• The contrasts between Old Narnia and "modern" Narnia under Miraz are minimised. That's quite a serious thing, as the (dis)enchantment of the world is a big theme in the book. See Greydanus for more.
  
• Trumpkin becomes Mr. Grumpy, which misses the nuance of the character. In the book, Trumpkin is conflicted but willing and earnest to seek the truth. Sure, this means he's going to be a little gruff on occasion, but in the end he's always trustworthy. Considering that I think one of the key scenes in the book, the dispute between the Badger (whose name currently escapes me) and Nikabrik, is given its power precisely because of Trumpkin's qualities, I'm certainly not optimistic about this.
  
• Reepicheep becomes the wisecracking equivalent of Shrek's Donkey. NOOOOO!!!! Reepicheep is the quintessence of chivalry and valiance. It's because of this that he is occasionally overly zealous, which leads to some pretty funny moments, but ironic he ain't.
  
• As Stephen Altrogge quite memorably put it, Susan has a 'Saved By the Bell'-crush on Caspian. *slaps forehead*
  
• Peter and Caspian have a clash of egos. Actually, I don't have a problem with this change, since I think it doesn't violate the spirit of the book in that both still have some growing up to do. I'm told Peter is actually much stronger in this film, which is a welcome change from the first movie.
  
• Aslan is reduced to a bit role, and Lucy sees Aslan in a dream sequence - not in the book.

As you can plainly see, in this case, I'm all for a faithful adaptation. Personally, I don't think this means following the book slavishly - I have no problem with rearranging or expanding material. I'm glad the LOTR films are the way they are! But a faithful adaptation should seek to be true to the spirit of the book, and judging by the reviews, ugh.

Now to be fair, even the more mixed reviews have pointed out plenty of positives. I've already mentioned that most agree that the film is better on the pacing of the plot. A film buff friend of mine was sold on the Penvensies, whom he says really do shine here. The more positive reviews have faulted Christians for having unrealistic expectations of Hollywood and highlight the general spiritual themes that come through, such as those of faith, courage, the folly of folly. In one sense, that actually makes it more disappointing, because while all these are good, the film seems to have missed the boat in conveying the even richer vision of the book.

Despite that, I think I will go and see the film when it comes out. Who knows, maybe I'll revise my opinion.

REVIEWS
More mixed:
Steven Greydanus - if you read just one review, this is probably it. Balanced and very thoughtful.
Jeffrey Overstreet
Peter Chattaway
Doug Wilson

More positive:
Christ and Pop Culture
John Mark Reynolds
Frederica Mathewes-Green (not a standalone review)
Mark Doebler

For fun: What would Repicheep say?

The One Movie Meme

Sorry for the recent lack of posts - I've had other things on my mind apart from blogging recently. Didn't feel like writing anything particularly weighty today, so although I wasn't tagged for this meme, I thought it'd be fun to do it anyway!

1. One movie that made you laugh
Hot Fuzz

2. One movie that made you cry
Grave of the Fireflies

3. One movie you loved when you were a child
Lion King

4. One movie you’ve seen more than once
Lost in Translation

5. One movie you loved, but were embarrassed to admit it
Mean Girls - it's great on the pack mentality of high school!

6. One movie you hated
A Lot Like Love

7. One movie that scared you
It

8. One movie that bored you
Ang Lee's The Hulk

9. One movie that made you happy
Any Pixar film really

10. One movie that made you miserable
Monster's Ball

11. One movie you weren’t brave enough to see
Any of the Saw movies, and I have no desire to rectify that!

12. One movie character you’ve fallen in love with
Juno Macguff in Juno (Ellen Page)

13. The last movie you saw
Paprika

14. The next movie you hope to see
Possibly Iron Man

I'm meant to tag 5 people, but I won't. But if you do it, let me know in the comments!

Cloverfield

I went to watch Cloverfield today. At first I thought of writing a review, but in the end, decided that James Berardinelli pretty much nailed it.

Imagine a monster film told from the perspective of one of the random terrified screamers on the streets of New York instead of the "hero"/government/military/scientist etc., marry it to a Blair-Witch style handheld camera technique and you get Cloverfield. Someone said (below) that it's Godzilla for Generation Y, a postmodern, pessimistic take on catastrophe - there's no overarching metanarrative, no answers to the many questions raised: where does the monster come from? and so on. Granted, it does probe questions of "what would I really be like in the face of unimaginable disaster" but not in a sustained fashion.

I think it's a very well-crafted film, but that's not necessarily the same as an enjoyable or even ultimately worthwhile film. There was one particular moment near the end of the film which I found very difficult because it hit too close to home. Where it succeeds is that it really makes you believe you were there, which, for some, is what cinema is all about. Parallels to 9/11 too are of course, unavoidable.

If you've watched it, there's a very spirited comment thread going on over at Ross Douthat's, an Atlantic columnist, blog. Well worth reading.

Films, Fischer and failed flights

Cloverfield is already out in the US, with more sure to follow. Here are some of 2008's most anticipated films. I'm especially interested to see Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker.

Bobby Fischer died today. Bobby was a chess legend, quite possibly the most brilliant and eccentric of the grandmasters of the 20th century. I don't think he ever played Kasparov; now that would have been something!

And for a real life hero, how about the guy who piloted that British Airways crash flight when the Boeing 777 completely failed? "This man deserves a medal as big as a frying pan!"

Films of the year

First, the pseudo-advert and the biggest 'awwww' of the year...


Next, the trailer...


And on to the main feature!

I haven’t watched that many films this year, partly because London cinemas are more expensive (although the one near my bro’s place is certainly value-for-money: fairly cheap for a very pleasant environment, and even better, not overly crowded!), but also because my two movie kakis are no longer in this country. :( As with the books, I’ll simply list them as far as I can remember. Some are technically older releases which I caught on DVD.

Babel was nominated for an Oscar earlier this year and I really enjoyed it. It intertwines three narratives set in the Americas, Africa and Japan respectively, exploring the consequences of our actions, cultural prejudice and the importance of family. I know quite a few think it overwrought though. Hot Fuzz is my favourite comedy of the year, certainly one of my overall favourites of 2007. Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright team together again in this hilarious story of a cop whose record is so good that he gets assigned to a sleepy English village so that the others don’t look so bad. I also absolutely loved Sunshine, the sci-fi flick from Danny Boyle about the dying sun, even if recent revelations (to me) regarding Alex Garland’s screenplay put a new spin on my interpretation of the movie. The Curse of the Golden Flower wasn’t bad, although the kaleidoscope of colours and the intricate politics of the imperial Chinese court is a potent combination guaranteed to make your head spin. The Lives of Others can lay claim to being the best film of the year, as it follows the cat-and-mouse game between an East German secret agent and the dissenters of the Communist regime, culminating in powerful sacrifices having to be made on both sides. The Painted Veil is an adaptation of a Somerset Maugham book, regarding the healing of a fractured marriage of a young English couple set (mostly) in 1920s China. It’s great to see a positive portrayal of marriage on the big screen.

Amazing Grace is a good biopic of William Wilberforce, considering that I thought it could easily have been very dull. Spiderman 3’s pacing may have been a little off, but is still a great summer movie. I’ve written a sort of reflection-cum-review elsewhere on this blog...Transformers is exactly what you’d expect, mindless entertainment. Story? What story? It’s all about the robots baby. Little Miss Sunshine was the quirky indie hit of 2006, a story that ostensibly is about the hilarious attempt to get the youngest daughter, Olivia, of a rather dysfunctional family to a beauty pageant on time but is really about family sticking together, no matter how messed up we are. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is huge fun, although knowing the book definitely helps. The Simpsons Movie feels just like an extended TV special, which is fine as long as you’re a Simpsons fan. Gags aplenty. I admit it, I watched High School Musical! Another well-written romantic comedy was the Korean film Two Hundred Pounds Beauty. It’s both intelligent and funny! I also caught the London International Animation Festival this year, which featured a collection of animation shorts. I remember enjoying Recto Verso in particular.

Little Children is one of the best “dysfunction bubbling underneath perfect suburban life” films I’ve seen. My in-depth review is here. Darren Aranofsky is acknowledged as one of the more talented directors working in America today, but The Fountain is just terrible. It’s overly melodramatic and contrived. Thankfully, the movie I watched after that was the magnificent Ratatouille, which continues Pixar’s winning streak. I say it has a longshot for an Oscar Best Pic nomination. This is one not to be missed. Once is a sweet slice-of-life tale of a friendship between a budding street musician and a Czech immigrant, backed by an excellent soundtrack. Fracture is a courtroom thriller with an overly cocky Ryan Gosling battling Anthony Hopkin’s cunning. The performances of both lift the movie out of B-grade territory.
---
That’s it, I think. I feel like I missed out on quite a lot. Having not watched the second instalments of either Pirates of the Carribean or the Bourne franchise, I naturally didn't watch Part 3. I did watch both Shreks but decided the underwhelming reviews meant that it was time to put Shrek 3 to bed. Some of the films I’ve heard raved about include the Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks & Two Days, No Country for Old Men (not yet released in the UK), The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the harrowing documentary Darfur Now, Michael Clayton, Knocked Up (well, my brother thought it was intelligently written and the reviews seem to agree), Rescue Dawn, Zodiac and This is England.

Ghibli also had a film out this year by Hayao Miyazaki’s son, Tales of Earthsea, but that has gotten a mixed reception. The Golden Compass has gotten more bad reviews than good, and I don’t mean from Christian outlets with agendas! American Gangster is apparently solid but nothing more. Ditto for Atonement. Lion for Lambs too talky and more suited for the theatre than the cinema, concludes the vast majority of reviewers. The Devil Came on Horseback is another much-needed Darfur documentary. The Assassination of Jesse James is meant to be pretty good and solidifies the comeback of the Western, although it’s also very long.

Some of the films I’m looking forward to watching include indie favourite (and also favourably reviewed) Juno, Lars and the Real Girl and Enchanted, which, although it supposedly suffers from a lacklustre ending, is meant to be Disney gently poking fun at itself.

Roll the credits...

Paste Magazine’s best films of 2007
Top rated films according to Rotten Tomatoes
Awards Daily best films of 2007
Roger Ebert, when he finally gets round to choosing it
Christianity Today Movies Top Films, not yet out

What were your top/favourite films of the year?


† Expand post

More Pullman

Just some links for those who're wanting to investigate more, and there must be considering the upsurge of google hits on Pullman! Peter Chattaway provides a good overview in Christianity Today, and he's got plenty of discussion going over at his blog. You might find these posts interacting with director Chris Weitz interesting - here, here and here.

My favourite film/arts critic Jeffrey Overstreet has a superb, in-depth Q&A which should be your one-stop resource. Anthony Loke a.k.a the reb also weighs in.

My original post is here, including a short reading list.
--
UPDATE: Peter Chattaway posts an extended interview with Pullman himself.

Philip Pullman

I haven't really put on my thinking cap or pulled out my writing pen (or in this case, keyboard) this week, as I don't really have anything of note to say. This is in spite of having actually read some good material both online and offline, plus longer-term stuff that I've always wanted to post about. I've been feeling a little tired, mentally, and the onslaught of the cold means that I much prefer to huddle under layers of blankets.

Not having posted anything book-related for a while, thought I'll do so today.

Not surprisingly, with The Golden Compass slated for release on the 5th of December, there's been more chatter about Philip Pullman and his Dark Matters trilogy. The eagle-eyed among you might have noticed that Northern Lights has been stuck to my Currently Reading board for quite a while now. Having picked it up a couple of months ago, I got distracted by other books and haven't returned to it just yet. Still, I only have a quarter left to go, so will finish it soon!

For those of you not clued in, this is the fantasy series, apart from Harry Potter, of the last decade or so. His Dark Materials comprises of Northern Lights (American title: The Golden Compass), The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. It's quite a dense trilogy, which means that the plot isn't easy to summarise. Basically, the story revolves around Lyra, a plucky preteen, who discovers that she is the central figure in a complex conspiracy between two sides vying for power. As we read on, and bear in mind that I haven't read that much yet, we can see that the story begins to take on added meanings and that we're actually reading about a war between God, or perhaps more accurately, the Church, and Satan.

Pullman draws on ideas from quite a diverse range of fields. Physics, for one - the trilogy takes place in a multiverse (as I know zilch about physics, you have to look elsewhere if you're looking for more on multiverses!), and there's stuff about dark matter as well. Philosophy, for another - Pullman is sympathetic to gnostic strains of thought. Not having read the whole trilogy yet, I can't confirm this, but I suspect that Pullman probably is a Romantic. (That means he sees emotion and sublimity as the epitome of the human experience, not that he's the second coming of Colin Firth!) His literary influences are pretty obvious; I'm sure more than one of you would probably have guessed that John Milton's Paradise Lost is an obvious literary forbearer, and Pullman is obviously interested in expanding on William Blake's famous statement that "Milton was of the devil's party without knowing it". (This is a reference to the fact that many people who read Paradise Lost couldn't help but feel that Satan was portrayed as the hero, although there is much debate over whether this was Milton's intention or not. Not that authorial intentions matter much nowadays in the scholarly guild anyway.)

Pullman is an atheist, and has gone on record attacking C.S Lewis' Narnia, although opinion as to whether His Dark Materials is explicitly anti-Narnia differ. He is also acknowledged as a very gifted and imaginative reader. All three individual books have won awards, and Northern Lights snared the Carnegie of Carnegies. Now to tell you the truth, I've been pretty underwhelmed so far by his writing, but now that I've become a little more familiar with where he's coming from, I've grown more appreciative. And hey, in my final year at university, someone in my faculty was offering a lecture series on "Philip Pullman and John Milton", so obviously they must think he has some merit!

Pullman, as far as I can tell, pulls no punches. A lot of his disconcerting stuff (to Christians) are found in the second and third books, so I haven't gotten to them yet. But from what I've heard, God is portrayed as feeble and weak, the Christian heaven a horrible place, and the church invariably an instrument of oppression. So as you can imagine, many Christian groups are up in arms over the release of this movie and calling for a boycott. One prominent exception, though, has been Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who argues that the books aren't anti-Christian so much as it is anti-dogmatic.

I have yet to make up my mind, but I do think that a boycott is simply counter-productive. I always think that far too many Christians take a reactionary approach. Do we really think that Pullman, Dawkins et al. are going to cause the downfall of Christianity? I don't think so. That doesn't mean that I don't think the books have the capacity to be dangerous or subversive. But really, that isn't anything new. Long before Pullman, there was Jan Mark's Divide and Rule and Pete Hautman's Godless, and to a lesser extent Lois Lowry's The Giver, all young adult fiction which also highlighted the darker side of organised religion. It shouldn't be surprising that so many coming-of-age tales feature religion prominently, since religion would surely come into the equation whenever people start exploring the big questions of life. Far better to engage with the books themselves, to show where (I suspect) Pullman's ideology actually weakens his storytelling, and to paint a far more compelling narrative of the Christian story, which is of course one of true freedom rather than oppression.

Whew! I was actually planning simply planning to write little vignettes of some of the books I've been reading, but I see that this post has developed into one about Philip Pullman. So I'll just leave it there. When I eventually finish the trilogy I might tell you what I think. But for those of you looking for more detail, here's a good if long podcast interview with Alan Jacobs, professor of English at Wheaton College and author of one of my favourite Harry Potter essays. He essentially sees a Manichean duality at the heart of Pullman's thought. There are spoilers in the interview though! Jacobs has also written a critique of the trilogy in the Weekly Standard (referenced in the podcast interview), which is unfortunately no longer online. However, there are some extracts from that piece here.

Also, here's a short reading list:

• Dark Matter: A Thinking Fan's Guide to Philip Pullman by Tony Watkins. This is the book I'm planning to read once I've finished the trilogy. Watkins, a Christian, explores the scientific and literary background to Pullman, interviews Pullman himself, offers a generous appreciation of his writing before going on to offer a critique of Pullman's distorted version of Christianity. I've heard lots of praise for this one so am looking forward to dipping into it.
  
• The Devil's Account: Philip Pullman and Christianity by Hugh Rayment-Pickard. Rayment-Pickard, whom I think is a Catholic, offers a succint critique of the morality underlying Pullman's work, showing that it doesn't hold the high ground.
  
• Shedding Light on His Dark Materials: Exploring Hidden Spiritual Themes in Philip Pullman by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware. I saw this book profiled recently, and as far as I can tell, the authors argue that Pullman's story actually undermines his own worldview by showing how Christianity is the only plausible framework which his world can operate. Or something like that. That's an interesting thesis, though I'm not sure if it's persuasive.
  

† Expand post

Review: Once

I was in the mood to watch an indie flick today, and, having read a glowing review of Once in Empire, was pleased to see that one of the two London locations it was playing at was reasonably nearby. Good choice!

Once is beautiful and intimate, a love letter both to music and the privilege of friendship, even when that friendship is precariously poised on a precipice that overlooks the treacherous seas of romance and the warning flag is up. There is only the barest of plots – the two characters the story revolves around aren’t even named. It’s simply the tale of an Irish busker (Glen Hansard) who meets a Czech immigrant (Marina Irglova) and discover a mutual affinity for music and each other. We, the audience, are simply the invisible chaperone as we watch their relationship bloom in the most ordinary of settings: in their homes, in a shop, on the streets. And of course, a large part of the film is the music, which is woven effortlessly through the film as part of the narrative – it is the passion of both characters, after all, and a natural part of their lives – as well possessing as an expositional function: it makes the inner thoughts of the characters accessible to us. We could say that Once is a musical, but not as how you would normally conceive a musical. However, if you’re not into singer-songwriterish type music, you might not enjoy the film so much.

I really did no justice to the feel of the film in the last paragraph. Trust me when I say this is no Hugh Grant vehicle.

A film like this depends heavily on the characters to make it compelling, and Glen and Marina, who are both professional musicians rather than actors, are remarkable. They produce understated but powerful performances. This is as far from standard Hollywood romantic comedy as you get here. The conversations are made up of the everyday stuff that you and I have. (Fixing a hoover / vacuum cleaner, anyone?) We empathise with the complicating circumstances when they show up as they get to know each other better. Isn't this true of real life, that as we get to know each other better, more of our messiness shows up as well? As the characters deal with the awkward limbo between friendship and something more, the choices that they eventually make are powerfully communicated because they arise so organically.

The way the film was shot lends it a naturalistic feel; when Mara walks back home from a quick trip to the local store at night, I know exactly what that’s like because I’ve done the same thing myself. Ditto for the scenes in the high street, anyone who’s walked down a high street in any British town would have no problem placing themselves in the crowd. (Note: The film is set in Dublin.) The only thing I wished was a more steady hand when the director, John Carney, used close-up shots. The slight motions of the frame were enough to give me a little headache!

Once is worth lauding because it never moves into escapism. It recognises that life doesn’t always work out the way you want it to, and that man (and woman!) cannot live by self-gratification alone. Communal scenes are highlighted throughout and neither the characters, thankfully, demonstrate anything more than a hint, if that, of narcissism.

At the same time, it is a film that basks in celebrating the good moments as they come, and encourages us not to dwell on the hardships of life, but to view them as opportunities instead. To this end, Once is incurably romantic. May it be more romances of this nature are made!

Sundance winner, ****

I thought of putting up a video of Falling Slowly, arguably the standout song from the film here, but actually, I think it’s better if you first encounter it in the context of the film first. But here’s Part 1 of an interesting four-part interview with Glen and Marina (you can access the other parts from the follow-up links at the end of the video):




† Expand post

Intermission: Capa's Jump and To Start a War

Time for a little break.

If you were to ask me right now, which are the 3 best films I've seen this year, I'll probably say Ratatouille, The Lives of Others, and Little Children - the latter two technically 2006 releases. But if you were to ask me about my favourite films of 2007, then it'd have to be Ratatouille (again), Hot Fuzz and Sunshine.

In my review of Sunshine, I mentioned really enjoying the operatic score, and ever since then I've been waiting patiently for the soundtrack to come out. The release date isn't too far away apparently, but a couple of tracks have already made it onto Youtube. Here's Capa's Jump, played during the scene right before the climax of the film where everything just goes berserk. Still gives me the goosebumps.


(Don't worry, no spoilers in the video!)

I haven't actually bought many albums this year, but earlier this summer I did make a double swoop on Arcade Fire's new album Neon Bible and Boxer by the lesser-known band The National. I think both have the potential to make many top 10 lists at the end of the year. Here's the delightfully simple but tuneful To Start a War live.


Enjoy!

I know I'm late but...

wow wow wow. I think I'm truly an unabashed Brad Bird fanboy now. Ratatouille finally opened in the UK yesterday and I went to see it tonight with my bro and sis-in-law. Great story, great animation, great heart, great everything. I have nothing to add to the heaping amount of praise it's already garnered. The LA Times piece is well-written and Jeffrey Overstreet's review is thoughtful as always.

A long shot for an Oscar Best Pic nomination (Beauty and the Beast is the only animated film in history to have been nominated)?

*****

Now, where can I get my hands on a copy of The Iron Giant?

Review: Little Children

It's not neccessary, but it helps to have watched the film.

Gaping cracks in the midst of perfect suburbia has become one of the most popular themes in both film and literature over the last decade. The title of a recent film, Disturbia, captures this sentiment perfectly. These are the fault lines that emerge when the cultivated appearance of the perfect middle-class life: perfect homes, perfect children, perfect jobs, perfect cars – meet the reality of imperfect human beings, like the rough spots and warts which break out all over smooth porcelain skin . When the stress of these two opposing tectonic plates dragging past each other is too great, the rocks rupture like a coiled spring.

This dark vision of suburbia has become rather clichéd, but Little Children can take pride of place for being one of the best films yet to explore this profoundly modern disaffection. Sarah (Kate Winslet), an English Lit masters graduate in a former life, is now a fulltime stay-at-home mum who feels trapped in a lonely marriage. Her husband (Gregg Edelman) is completely absorbed in his job, and who himself finds fulfilment in looking at porn. Brad (Patrick Wilson) is a househusband, who, having failed his bar exams, feels shame and aimless, while his more successful Type-A personality wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) ends up as the pants-wearer in the house. Each morning, Sarah takes her child, Lucy to the park, patiently enduring the catty gossip of the three other mothers that regularly meet there. She ends up meeting Brad (the object of fantasy of the women), and in one impulsive moment, having been challenged to obtain his phone number, goes further than she needs to and end up sharing a kiss. The seeds for the ensuing adulterous affair are planted.

There is another subplot which revolves around a friend of Brad, Larry (Noah Emmerich), a retired cop who’s made a few mistakes of his own. He has chosen to adopt a vigilante role against a recently released paedophile, Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley), who now lives with his mother (Phyllis Sommerville). In fact, the whole neighbourhood is wary of Ronnie, captured perfectly in one scene where mass hysteria ensues (not entirely without justification) as soon as he enters the community swimming pool teeming with children.

Kate Winslet is truly a top-class actress; I don’t think I’ve ever seen her give a bad performance. What marks her out is her ability to completely disappear into her character. Throughout the whole film, whenever I watched Sarah on screen, that was all I saw, I never once thought to myself: “That’s Kate Winslet doing [insert action here]”. This is in contrast to, for example, Keira Knightley (who is a talented actress in her own right). Whenever I watch the latter, I think, yep, that’s Keira on screen, not, for example, Elizabeth Bennet. The whole cast is excellent, though I think Haley as Ronnie also deserves particular mention. I also wished Connelly had more screen time as I wanted to get to know her character better, but I suspect they didn’t want to make the film excessively long.

This is a courageous film that neither flinches from seeing the ugliness of sin nor descending into a morass of “we can do whatever we want” morality. Although the story is told primarily from the perspectives of the two main leads, Sarah and Brad, and sympathetically enough that there are occasions when you want to root for them, the director Todd Field has resorted to an old-fashioned device, the voiceover of an omniscient narrator, to lend us some much needed distance. Thus, lest we be completely taken by them, we are instead asked to question whether their motivations, their justifications, their actions, are always right. Pragmatically, it provides insight into the interiority of the characters, and also keeps the narrative woven tightly enough. Scenes move along quickly when they have to. That the film is just over 2 hours long and yet never flags is a testament to its perfectly judged pacing.

The film demonstrates how we are all captives to our desires, what the Bible will call our sinfulness. This is captured early on by Sarah’s husband when he sees no reasons not to give in to his wanton wants. For Sarah, her persistent refusal to cast herself in any role other than victim means that for a long time, she is unable to come to terms with her own brokenness. In one scene where she ends up discussing Madame Bovary, whose heroine is involved in affair after affair where she ends up tragically used by various men, her own perspective has become warped enough that she now identifies with the heroine where once she was repelled by her. Similarly, Brad does not want to take responsibility for his failures in work or to work at his marriage, which, at this stage, is nowhere near the terminal stage. Larry, more obviously, needs to atone for his past mistakes, and does so by choosing to obsess over Ronnie’s sin. In doing so, he appears to project his own mistakes onto Ronnie.

But before we rush to judge, the film at every turn reminds that we are all hypocrites, ready to condemn the easy target without looking at our own hearts. All the characters here have secrets. Look not just at Sarah, but watch the gossipy mothers too. The gap between fantasy and reality becomes all too apparent. Sarah accepts this trade-off for a while, but eventually the charade becomes too painful, and she has to make a choice one way or the other.

We are also asked to recognise that the big questions of life are big for a reason. What is the meaning of life, of my life? Where does true satisfaction lie? How do we deal with the obstacles that life brings? How we answer these questions make a huge difference to the way we live and our understanding of the story we live in. Another interesting question implicitly asked by the film is that of gender roles. Where do men and women fit in today’s world without shortchanging one or the other? It’s certainly something I need to think through more, especially as a tentative complementarian.

One person who comes out of this well is Ronnie’s mother. She showers nothing but unconditional love on her son, wanting the very best for him, willing to overlook his past transgressions. Here, I think, there is a misstep, because she does so almost too lightly, saying to Ronnie: “You’ve done a bad thing, but I know you’re not a bad person.” This, admittedly, is the perspective of 99% of the movies out there. Also, the way the narrative subsequently plays out also allows this to be assumption to be questioned. Ronnie, encouraged to go on a blind date, reverts to type. But it is her love that ultimately drives Ronnie to change – in fact, I think in light of Ronnie’s actions at the end of the film, the word repent will not be out of place at all. It is Ronnie’s recognition that he is, in fact, a truly bad person that sets the ball rolling in the right direction. Also, Ronnie’s mother plays out in stark contrast to the rest of the mothers in the film, who all either excessively idolise the role of the parent (as the many mothers do), or fail to acknowledge the value of this role, as Sarah and by implication Kathy, do. Moreover, all of them seem to see their children as mere accessories. (This is perhaps unfair to both Sarah and Brad, who, however imperfectly, do love their children dearly.)

Watching the final 15 minutes of the film, I was wondering if it was all going to end in tragedy. It certainly seemed that way, and uncomfortable as that was, it was all too feasible. But at the last moment, the director pulls back, and allows hope to seep back into the picture. People recognise the destructive consequences of their actions. And I’m glad for that. No, it’s nowhere near happily ever after. But it hints at the possibilities of the existence of a U-Turn, while never losing sight of the many challenges that lie ahead, and the responsibilities that each character in turn has to shoulder.

Is there anything wrong with the film? There is some nudity involved, and it probably did not need to be as graphic as it was. From a storyline viewpoint, I felt like I didn’t get to know the spouses well enough, but I understand that it might have made the film too bloated. Sarah's relationship with her husband never quite feels tangible, and I don't really know what her best friend, Joan, was there for.

Little Children could refer to a few things. It obviously refers to the many children who populate this film, the ones whom everyone is striving to shelter from the big bad world out there. It also refers to the adults, who often behave exactly like little children: spoilt and self-centered. But there is another possibility. To be like a little child is to learn to be dependent, to recognise our profound need for help. To be like a little child is also to enjoy the love a parent would shower on us. There is no mention of Jesus or God or anything remotely "religious" in the film, yet this is a tale congruent with Christian presuppositions. And maybe Jesus is there after all. Here is the tagline of the film: 'Let the little children come unto me'.

****1/2

Endnote:
With many thanks to Tony Watkins for helping to focus my reflections. [Link is a little spoilerish, but it’s the type of film where knowing the spoilers don’t matter.]


† Expand post

Guilty pleasure of the month

The last ‘worthy’ movie I’ve watched must have been the Oscar-winning The Lives of Others (it’s really good, btw), but since then I’ve been unable to get myself to watch anything serious. Let’s review the shows I’ve watched recently: The Painted Veil (ok, that’s semi-worthy…), Transformers, Harry Potter, 200 Pounds Beauty, and this past weekend, The Simpsons. I obviously can’t bear watching anything that requires too much thinking ever since I started writing my thesis.

But there’s one other recent film I’ve watched which I confess to thoroughly, completely enjoying, and completely destroys any remaining credibility I have. Yes, I watched that pop culture tween phenomenon, High School Musical.

If you don’t know what that is, and I bet that all of you do, High School Musical was a Disney Channel Original Movie, conceived as a musical, in a classic modern-day Romeo & Juliet type storyline. Troy (Zac Elfron) and Gabriella (Vanessa Anne Hudgens) meet during vacation and discover a mutual passion for singing (and each other). What do you know, Gabriella ends up being the new girl at Troy’s school, where she discovers that they both belong to different cliques. I think that’s all I need to say really, and you can guess the rest.

It became a huge hit, which took everyone, including Disney, by surprise. They had obviously hit a nerve somewhere; for tweens, a reassurance that the world of adolescence isn’t so frightening, for teens, a wish-fulfillment trope, and for anyone older, nostalgia a-plenty for a world that never existed.

I really enjoyed the chemistry between Zac and Gabriella. They had more going for them than plenty of adult romantic leads! The first song, Start of Something New, while bland on its own, was great in the context of the film, setting up the whole premise and extracting a great performance from the two leads. The chorus remains stuck in my head! The middle song, Stick to the Status Quo, is inventive, and I can foresee the final song We’re All in This Together being the type of song that people will sing at high school graduation parties. Tisdale as Sharpay is also gloriously over-the-top.

Let’s get all the usual (and valid) criticisms out of the way first. Sure, it’s formulaic – it’s a Disney Channel movie after all! – with perhaps the only slight variation being that the thing that separates our two leads is not the different cliques they belong to per se, but their desire to break out of their respective cliques. There’s overacting, and Hudgens (otherwise very winsome) is particularly guilty of this during her singing of “When There was Me and You”. Sure, there’s plot holes and convenient resolutions. Sure, the pop ditties are mostly by-the-numbers, catchy but forgettable. Sure, it’s unrealistic, and we’ll get back to this. And sure, the usual gospel of Disney gets proclaimed: “Be true to yourself! Don’t care what other people think! Make your dreams come true!”, although this gospel of non-conformity is undercut by the fact that at the end, if you think about it hard enough, all that happens is that the popular get more popular, and the clique mentality is actually reinforced. People don’t actually escape their station.

In the end though, the whole point of High School Musical is that it’s a complete escapist fantasy, and that’s what Disney excels at. It portrays a high school full of diverse, good-looking people who turn out to be multi-talented, all in a completely wholesome manner which most parents would approve of. Heck, even the villain isn’t so villainous after all. The finale is a huge celebration of school unity, where everyone, of whatever race or talent, wins. We all know there’s no high school that even closely resembles the one being portrayed here, but that doesn’t spoil our fun. I'm loathe to admit it, but HSM does appeal irresistably to my sentimental side.

My favourite lines: "What courage to pursue a note that’s never been accessed in the natural world" and "We need to save our show from people who don't know the difference between a Tony Award and Tony Hawk".

I guess part of the pleasure derived from this film is due to me having always been interested in this whole school clique schmaltz. I enjoy watching the dynamics of it from afar. Not so fun if you’re part of it! The reality on the ground is more complicated of course. I was on my school chess and basketball team (albeit as the 12th man), where do I fit in?

This is a whimsical post, so this feels tacked on, but one final quick thought, the unity here, though heartfelt, is in the end, superficial because the gospel of Disney can’t really provide the long-term foundations to support it. What would true unity look like?

Together, together… (arrrrgh!!!!!)

P/S There is now a sequel, which no doubt will fail to reach the heights of its predecessor and be more calculated to churn out some cash. There is an interesting Newsweek feature on HSM as well which I enjoyed reading.


† Expand post

200 Pound Beauties and summer frivolity

I was over at my brother's last night with some friends to have dinner and to spend time together watching a DVD. The consensus pick was a South Korean comedy: 200 pounds Beauty. I don't watch Korean stuff at all, so I had never heard of it, but apparently it's popular.

On the surface, it sounds like this movie has been made a hundred times: ugly girl who aspires to be a singer and win the heart of her love gets a total makeover via plastic surgery and emerges as stunning beauty with a new identity. But in the process, who has she become? I have to say, though, I was pretty impressed with this one. It's very well-written, and avoids all the cliches that you expect of a film like this. They did well not to make the romance the main focus of the movie, although it still does, of course, play a big part. One of the obvious themes of a movie of this genre will have to be on the nature of true beauty, and they handled this really well, with a good dose of humour and no obvious preachiness.

The characterisation was surprisingly complex. A common pitfall of the Ugly Ducking Movie tends to to be the lazy treatment of the main character. Once the protagonist undergoes a physical transformation, she usually takes a turn for the worse, becoming arrogant and forgeting her roots without sufficient explanation. Thankfully, you don't get that here. She remains fundamentally the same person, although saddled with new insecurities. It helps that the lead actress is very charming and plays her role winningly. Nor is the villain some girl who's being evil for the sake of being evil, but we do, albeit briefly, get some insight into her motivations.

Yes, there is a big and arguably formulaic climatic scene of revelation, but by the time the movie arrives there, it has earned its dues. The payoff is rewarding, as we have gotten there without navigating through the usual routes.

But probably the biggest reason I liked it is simply because it's thoroughly warm-hearted. It's very sweet without (mostly) descending into sentimentality. There's a realism about it as well; it's not quite all lovey-dovey at the end, although it is a happy ending. And yes, it is very funny! (This is one for teens and above, though).

One of my favourite moments was hearing Blondie's Maria being belted out in Korean. I used to hear it on radio quite a bit in 1999 (I think), usually on the way to school! So I felt a little nostalgic upon hearing it again. Here's the video for it, which doubles as a trailer for the film:

I also went to have a look at the Global Cities exhibition at the Tate Modern this afternoon with another friend. Did you know that 50% of the world's population now live in cities, and this is set to rise to 75% in 2050? The exhibit was more or less a comparative study of some of the world's most well-known cities, including London, L.A., Cairo, Tokyo, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Istanbul, Mumbai and Johannesburg. Hmmm, wonder what the implications of an increasingly urbanized world are?

And I also succumbed to temptation and bought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows today. I had originally intended it to be a reward for the completion of my thesis, but decided to use it as a reward for my hard work this week! :-p I also saw a rare second hand copy of Flannery O'Connors' complete stories and got that as well.

And that's the half-time report of my weekend. I'm BK, reporting live to you from London.

Spiderman 3 and the moral imagination

This post is interspersed with spoilers throughout. If you want to watch Spiderman 3 and have not done so, it's best to read this only after you've seen it.

"We want to see with other eyes, to imagine with other imaginations, to feel with other hearts, as well as with our own. We demand windows." [1] We demand stories. It’s how we make sense of the world. Narratives grip us, for good or bad: witness the heartbreaking drama of Madeleine McCann’s kidnapping currently unfolding in the British press[2]. Negatively, it’s why gossip holds so much appeal. The windows are shut, we want them pried open. It’s Gnosticism all over again – “secret knowledge” only known to the elite.

But surely the realm of the imagination has no bearing on reality? They’re fun, they’re entertaining, great for a Saturday night out. But the world of the fictive isn’t so easily separated from what we call the “real world”. They reflect something we already know – we already have an image of New York in our minds, regardless of whether it’s accurate or not, or whether we’ve actually been to the Big Apple – before going to watch Spiderman 3. Even fantastic creations – talking animals and extraterrestrials, have something fundamentally human about them that help make them identifiable in some way to us. But they can shape us too. Fables, fairy tales, morality plays all recognise this. In Ian McEwan’s Atonement, Briony witnesses something which she can’t make heads or tails of, and, not being in possession of all sides of the story, allows her imagination to see things that aren’t quite there which ends up having real consequences. [3] "In works of fiction, we explore the possibilities of understanding and living in this world." [4]

Imagination is often thought of as that belonging to the special few – the artist, the inventor, the musician. But we all have imagination, it simply is that faculty which helps us explain life as it is and it ought to be. It’s part of being human, and it also is not exempt from the Lordship of Jesus Christ. So although it is not very fashionable these days, it is right to talk about the "moral imagination" [5]. The moral imagination speaks of virtue and wisdom, and seeks to mould us to moral living [6]. It is not sheer didacticism, since we know both from experience and the Bible that this will backfire. We chafe under the Law. Rather, it is about providing a compelling vision of goodness. It is that which fires our imaginations. It celebrates what is good in this world, weeps over what is bad, is hopeful of what will be, all in a manner that captures our hearts. As Christians, we believe that Christianity is the best way to explain the world, and so the moral imagination will always, in some ways, conform to the Christian story, although perhaps not in ways we might expect. In other words, it doesn’t specifically have to be “religious”! Conversely, this is why great art with an amoral imagination working behind it is also more dangerous: its power lies in persuading you that evil is the more glamorous sister, or that despair is the pit we’re all destined for.

And so, (finally!), I get to Spiderman 3. I think the point is rather obvious by now – Spiderman 3 has its flaws, but I find the strength of its moral vision powerful enough to render its weaknesses forgivable. It has too many villains, for one thing, meaning that both Sandman and Venom/Eddie Brock could have benefited from more character development and/or backstory. This interferes with the pacing of the movie as well; when we get to the climatic scene, there’s an “Huh? We’re here already?” feel to it. Indeed, that scene itself suffers from some cheese, including the cringe-worthy reporter (how did she get in there?) to the overly enthusiastic crowds which just feel out of place.

Yet it seems to me that although he just didn’t have enough time to fully explore it in the movie, Sam Raimi had a clear grasp, thematically, on what Spiderman 3 is about. From both the comic books and the start of this trilogy, we understand that Spiderman is all about recognising that "with great power comes great responsibility". And so the themes of selflessness as opposed to selfishness has always figured prominently. Peter fails the test. Spiderman becomes a celebrity persona to be cultivated rather than a servant of the community. He fails to "put his wife before himself".

The motif is clear: his internal degeneration is mirrored outwardly by the back symbiote that has attached himself to his costume. It is only gotten rid of when Peter chooses to turn away from that path. There have been hints: Peter apologises to his landlord over his earlier overreaction. He understands that he may have superpowers to help others, but he too needs help (as MJ reminds him, and in returning the ring). My brother tells me that the church scene comes straight from the comics, so while Raimi and Stan Lee are not Christians as far as I know, they do understand the Christian concept of grace and its tie to repentance. Interestingly, Eddie Brock is the doppelganger [7]: he’s also a photographer for the Daily Bugle, he has a girlfriend (Gwen Stacy is Peter Parker’s first girlfriend in the comics). Like Peter, he is motivated by revenge, whereas Peter raged against his uncle’s killer. But he allows it to become all-consuming, which, as we see from the climax of the film, ultimately destroys him [8].

Related to the above, Spiderman 3 also explores what it means to desire and what happens when desires that are not wrong per se govern our hearts and become an idol. Peter’s right desire for justice becomes distorted when he thinks that he is the rightful enforcer of that justice. By contrast, Aunt May also desires justice, exemplified by her tearful reaction to the news that Uncle’s Ben killer is at large, but she refuses to cave in to what she has no right to do: wish death on another person. The Sandman rightfully desires a cure for his daughter, but allows it to rule his heart such that he resorts to any means by which he can get it. Mary Jane rightfully desires good companionship – that Peter might become a better person and partner – but wrongfully worships such companionship until she fails to be faithful and kisses Harry. (She immediately recognises this as wrong. Peter too errs in wooing and using Gwen; again, his legitimate desire nevertheless leading to wrong actions). Spiderman 3 thus questions: how do we react to circumstances around us?

But actions have consequences. Peter has to recognise that he is implicated in the creation of Venom. Mary-Jane reacts to savage reviews of her performance by withdrawing into herself, and her initial refusal to be vulnerable closes the door on hope (Harry exploits this later in pretending to be the "other man".) Eddie Brock is caught by his deception. But Aunt May’s gentle response turns away Peter’s wrath and helps him see what a fool he really is.

Indeed, this then links to a minor theme, that of masking and unmasking, or to put it another way: a question of identity. Peter: is he the guy in the red or the black costume? His landlord and Aunt May both claim he’s good. Will he be that person? MJ: will she allow criticism to define who she really is? Harry: Peter’s best friend or worst enemy? (The butler really should have told him sooner though. =) Isn’t it interesting that in the climatic scene, both Peter and Harry, the “good” guys, fight unmasked. They've discovered what it means to be human. Venom and the Sandman, on the other hand, have become sub-human. [9]

No one will claim Spiderman 3 is a Christian allegory, or that Spiderman, or even Harry is a Christ-like figure. There’s no need to. Instead, Spiderman 3 simply pays close attention to moral virtues of forgiveness and grace, of understanding our shared humanity, and then majoring on them. It’s "telling the truth / but telling it slant" [10]. It simply helps invite people to have a closer look at the world once again. Then perhaps as Christians, we might be able to ask them to consider it in light of the truth of the gospel.

---
[1] C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

[2] See this for some details. The Observer has some poignant observations. We instinctively look for some sort of coherence in a messy world, but Christians recognise that ultimately, they don’t happen to be the Author. The McCanns, devout Catholics, headed straight for the chapel. They understand this.

[3] The point of not knowing everything tells us a little of why gossip is so damaging: it's applying deviation from the truth. I should hasten to add that I haven’t finished reading Atonement yet!

[4] Clarence Walhoult, cited in Literature Through the Eyes of Faith by Roger Lundin & Susan Gallagher.

[5] The term might have originated with Edmund Burke, who was a political philosopher in the Conservative Tradition. Just in case it has a specialised meaning within political terminology, I am here using "moral imagination" in a much more general sense.

[6] As opposed to moralism! I don’t claim here that the moral imagination is a substitute for the Holy Spirit, who is the only One who can make us more Christ-like. Nevertheless, it helps in the education of our character by pointing to truth.

[7] A doppelganger literally means “double”, a technique where another character is used to mirror the main character. I think strictly speaking, it’s meant to be the same character, eg. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde! I don’t push it that far in Spiderman.

[8] Vengeance is a big theme to consider on its own, since it is also a huge part of Harry Osborn’s story. Consider too Peter's use of Gwen in getting back at MJ.

[9] Keeping in mind doctrine of original sin of course! Then again, Spiderman 3 ain't systematic theology. One final theme which I haven’t thought much about is the father-child theme. But it might be worthwhile thinking about Peter and Uncle Ben’s relationship. Harry and his dad. Marko Flint and his daughter. And even MJ and her critical dad.

[10] Emily Dickinson.

Cross-posted at the Agora


† Expand post