Now Playing double feature: Lars and the Real Girl and Be Kind Rewind

I had not planned on watching Lars and the Real Girl. It's the story of a shy upper midwesterner who orders a life-size girl doll (yes, one of those), and carries it around with him everywhere, passing it off as his "girlfriend". However, when an octegenarian says "You must see this movie", well, I sit up and take notice.

The film is not crude. Indeed, it's sweet. Lars is so chronically shy, he can't even endure skin contact with another person. He's not insane; he's not dangerous. He's just deeply wounded and trying to process what it means to be an adult. As Lars goes through this delusion, insisting that this doll is a wheelchair bound child of missionaries from Brazil, the whole town rallies around, trying to help him by treating her as though she were a real person. The whole community engages in this elaborate fiction.... even to the point of giving this doll a life of her own separate from Lars's life. This gracious extension of love and imagination becomes the classroom in which Lars learns what it means to grow up from a wounded child into an adult who takes responsibility for doing the difficult things in life. Lars' brother also gets confronted with owning up to his own past failures as a brother and seeking forgiveness. All of it because the whole community rallies around Lars to offer love.

And this is why I make the connection with Be Kind Rewind. This movie was something of a disappointment. Mos Def and Jack Black work in an old video store, and through a bizzare series of events, Jack Black erases all the videos. They hurriedly try to re-film all the movies themselves. Watching these two morons recreate Ghostbusters is a riot. Soon the whole neighborhood gets involved in making the movies and enjoying the movies. When the copyright goons come in and shut down the operation, the two heroes understand that they can make their own film. They create a documentary about legendary musician Fats Waller .... bringing the whole neighborhood in on the act. It's a complete work of fiction, but the project of creating the fiction brings the community together.

In both cases, we have instances where the community gathers in an act of creative storytelling. In both, we have strange quirky characters who are both annoying and loveable. In both we have a celebration of community, togetherness, and a confidence that even in the face of tragedy or discouragement, the community can write a newer more lyrical reality.

It's very telling that Lars is shown reading to his real girl from Don Quixote, the great story of a man who created his own reality of being a knight errant, and he was more alive in his world of fantasy than he was in his world of reality. Quixote understood that the name a man chooses for himself is oftentimes more his own than the one he's born with.

It's an interesting trend in film.... parallel with the epic larger than life superhero films, we have these very homey films that focus on the community. These films help us reflect on such community oriented passages as Romans 12:4-5 "For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another." -- come what may we belong to one another. Maddening though we are to each other, we are God's gift to one another. I Corinthians 12 hits at this as well "to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." (v 7) and the whole chapter becomes a meditation on how the Spirit grants different roles and gifts within the body of Christ.

Strange and quirky as they are, these films help us reflect on what it means to live as the body of Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

Now Playing: The Dark Knight

Warning--- Spoilers ahead, if you've not seen the film, beware.

Believe the hype....The Dark Knight is quite possibly one of the best crafted films of the year. And Heath Ledger puts in an Oscar-Worthy performance that would posthumously mark him as one of the iconic greats, just like Giant did for James Dean.

You'll hear all about the violence....the depravity of the Joker character (a niezchiean figure who goes on the idea that all the "rules" are hypocrisy and he's called to be an agent of chaos).

I want to focus on the idea of storytelling and the hero. In many ways, this film is the anti-matter version of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. John Ford's 1962 classic has two hero characters faced off against an amoral villan. The scrupulous lawman hero, played by Jimmy Stewart, runs afowl of the evil Liberty Valance and winds up stuck in a gunfight with him. Two shots ring out, Liberty dies, and the lawman is hailed as a hero because of his toughness. He rides his fame to Washington as a senator. However, he returns home at the death of an impoverished cowboy, and the newspaper editor corners him and gets him to tell the true story. That cowboy was the tough frontiersman hero, played by John Wayne. He was the only one who Liberty Valance feared, but he never did anything about him, until the lawman arrived and started talking about law and order. Then, on the night of the shootout, John Wayne's character hid out in an alley and he's the one who shot Liberty Valance. But he couldn't take credit for it because it would ruin the lawman's chances at bringing order to the west. He took his story with him to the grave so that the legend of the Man who Shot Liberty Valance could inspire the rest of the people.

Get it ... tough hero kills an amoral villan.... scrupulous law hero takes the credit .... the story is false, but the myth that is told is important for securing order in the community.

Contrast the Dark Knight....scrupulous lawman hero Harvey Dent is corrupted by the amoral villan Joker....he commits several murders for vengance. In this scenario, the scrupulous lawman hero dies without anyone knowing he has been corrupted, so the tough guy hero, Batman, takes the blame so that the scrupulous lawman can remain an inspiring figure for the community. Joker, the amoral villan, lives on.

So in the 1960s, mythmaking was around being tough and eliminating the amoral villan.
In the 2000s, mythmaking is around being a symbol of goodness to inspire the community to resist the amoral villan.

However, in both scenarios, lies are told to bolster the myth. Both stories acknowledge that we need heroes to inspire, we need good stories to help the community continue to fight the amoral villans. However, by their very nature, but stories undercut the nature of those heroes.

Id' be interested in your thoughts.....

Excelsior
Russell

Now Playing: Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End

Mrs. Eagle took care of baths and bedtimes for the Eaglets, and let me slip away for the evening to catch the opening of the third installment of Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End.

The early reviews said it was a convoluted plot, and not the best, but still a worthy installment of the franchise. I don't know what film they had seen, but I thought the plot was pretty straightforward for anyone who had seen the previous films -- I felt entertained through the whole three hours. I had likened the second film (Dead Man's Chest) to Empire Strikes Back (betrayals, darkness, empire rising, the rouge/scoundrel figure who is trapped by the enemy forces and must be rescued in the third film). This third film cements that analogy -- conflicts are resolved, romances are sealed, empires are shattered, characters are redeemed.

The redemptive elements caught my attention most. At the end of the second film we had several characters in need of redemption in one shape or another:

Jack Sparrow -- swallowed by the Kracken and taken down to Davy Jones' locker where he suffers eternal punishment in maddening isolation. He is victim to his own machinations, and he needs release.

Elizabeth Swann -- the heroine betrayed Jack, chaining him to the ship while everyone else escaped. She knew that was the only way to keep the Kracken from destroying everyone. However she bears the burden very un-pirate-like. She is stricken with remorse and can tell no-one what she has done. She is eager to rescue Jack and right her wrongs.

Bootstrap Bill Turner -- the father of the hero Will Turner -- he is cursed to serve on the haunted ship of the demonic Davy Jones for all of eternity. His only hope is that someone finds the way to destroy Jones and break the curse upon the whole crew.

Commander Norrington -- fallen from military heights, Norrington is a bitter angry drunk who still weilds a wicked sword in the second film. He betrays everyone by handing over the secret of controlling Davy Jones to the scheming Cutler (chairman of the British East India Company -- showing that ruthless efficiency and polite veneer can still be utterly evil). Though he is restored to his military commission, he must live haunted by the realization that he has given great power to a man far more evil than any pirate.

Davy Jones -- the cursed captain of the Flying Dutchman who prowls the sea in search of lost sailors he can impress into his demon crew. He was not always evil, but was twisted by anguish after the betrayal of his beloved.

and those are just the major characters. Suffice it to say, redemption is accomplished, but as with all true redemption a price must be paid: "for what we want most there is a cost that must be paid in the end" says the mysterious Tia Dalma. In this film, the price is the shedding of blood. This film does not shy from killing characters - even non-villan characters. Some of the good guys die in this one. The climax of the action and resolution of confilcts delivers a melancholy caress that really worked for me. It's not very Disney, but it does feel quite the old fashoned pirate story.

Some great comedy too -- they really re-captured a sense of the spirit of the first film. Keith Richards does a delightful turn as Captain Teague -- Jack Sparrow's father. All said, a very entertaining film that I enjoyed greatly.

However....

A few things disturbed me. First and foremost was the implication that these pirates were freedom fighters. Yes, the East India company is portrayed as a ruthless buracracy that seeks to stamp out any opposition. The opening scene shows the company forcing the governor to suspend all kinds of rights such as habeas corpus, freedom of assembly, freedom of jury trial. In the absence of these rights, the hangings begin. A fine reminder that behind the veneer of civility and order there is glue and sawdust that decays quickly into rot.

Even so, as the pirate leaders from across the world gather to battle the East India Company, Elizabeth delivers a speech straight from Braveheart, talking about fighting for freedom. I'm sorry, but this is a bit of a stretch. The freedom the pirates wanted was to "take everything you can, and give nothing back" (as Jack Sparrow and Mr. Gibbs repeat back to each other in each of the three movies). The freedom they want, after all, is the freedom to live life on their own terms, which includes bullying, stealing, and taking away from anyone that crosses their paths. The pirates show themselves to be adept at betrayal and ruthlessness. Please realize, I'm not trying to be a killjoy -- this is what we expect from a pirate movie (indeed it's part of the fun to play at it), but something just didn't ring right with me about the speech -- it was too much -- too out of place for pirates.

Then there is the issue of pagan worship. A central part of the plot deals with the release of the ancient sea goddess Calypso, whom the pirates bend their knees to in reverence. That's just kind of creepy, for with that we move from the realm of ghost story/folk tale into the realm of actual pagan deities. It didn't spoil anything for me, just left a lingering unsettled feeling.

So go forth with open eyes; enjoy the ride.

Excelsior
Russell

Note -- I've updated the movie index on the sidebar to include all the movie reviews from last year -- if you're interested in other movie reviews, check out the index.

Now Playing: One Night With the King

We brought home the DVD of One Night With the King, last year's film based on the biblical book of Esther. I was hoping for a thrilling epic, but I was expecting a cheesy flop -- I found the film was neither.

Strong Points: fine acting by John Rhys-Davies, Omar Sharif, John Noble. I particularly liked how the writers tied in the Esther story to the other major story of Xerxes' life -- the war with Greece (and I'm eagerly awating the upcoming film 300, which depicts Xerxes' forces in the battle of Thermopalye against 300 Spartans). Some viewers have seen this as an anti-war parable -- when in actuality, it's an old theme tracing back through hundreds of years of literature: The noble freedom loving Greeks fighting and winning an impossible war against the decadent empire of the Persians. This film ties the Biblical story and the Greek story together quite nicely. We also get a good feel for the polyglot nature of the Persian empire -- Indians, Africans, Middle Easterners, Asians -- they all are represented in Xerxes' court. (It had never occured to me that queen Vashti was Indian -- but the name fits, and it certainly fits within the expanse of the Persian empire)

Weak Points: the writing is at times very contrived -- the direction for the actors is quite sloppy (it feels like the actors were run through their lines and then the director said "that's great" -- there's no nuance, no delving for the subtle character traits that make for rich performances -- I lay that at the feet of the director). The portrayal of the villan, Haman, is heavy handed and over the top. (The film does a nice work of tracing the roots of Haman's hatred of Israel, though) -- he wears all black, he growls like a tiger, he even has a nice swastika logo which flashes every now and again as he gives demagouge speeches before assembled torch-lit mobs. Can anyone say Mein Kampf? There are annoying plot contrivances (a cheesy little pendant that when exposed to light gives off a disco-ball effect of star of Davids, as one for instance).

All told, as a romantic adventure, it's not too bad. As an Epic period piece, well, I've seen a lot better. It certainly wasn't boring the first time through, but I doubt that I'll be using this one to teach the book of Esther.

I guess I'll be sticking with the Veggie Tales version of Esther: The Girl Who Became Queen.

Soli Deo Gloria
Russell

Now Playing: Cromwell

Tammy's out of town this weekend, and I'm here at the house with the children. Got the girls in bed by 8pm, so what's a guy to do? Have a testosterone film fest -- lots of epic Braveheart kind of stuff. When Tammy leaves town, I get to watch films like Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Tonight's feature: Cromwell.

This title has been sitting on my shelf for about 6 months since John Jensen loaned it to me as a means of sharing our passion for history, things Puritan, action flicks, and really good battle scenes. However, I must admit that the shaky reviews from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes didn't give me much hope. I just read this Pop Matters review that rakes the film over the coals as a work of historic revisionism. DVD Savant believes the history is on, but the production is terrible. Interestingly, Britmovie's biography of director Ken Hughes suggests that Cromwell was meant to be a pale foreshadowing of Castro's takeover in Cuba (remember this was in the 1970s).

Here's my short take on the qualities of the film: Coming in a little over two hours, Cromwell gives us action and court suspense. Richard Harris as Cromwell seems to thrive in shout mode for most of the film, punctuated with a few moments of humor (His pre-battle delivery of the line "Put your faith in God... and keep your powder dry." is priceless). We get the sense that he's a noble man who is sucked into weilding absolute power, in the irony of becoming the very absolutist that he deposed.

Alec Guinness, on the other hand, delivers a complex and nuanced performance as Charles I -- at times playful, affectionate with his children, imperious, wily, waffling, and in the end facing his impending execution with dignity. The execution scene is one of the longest in the film, and it had me on the edge of my seat, mainly by virtue of Guiness command of the role. He invests Charles with a slight, almost imperceptible studder -- which invests both a sense of vulnerability and distance from commoners.

Interestingly, the film lingers for a bit on the families of both these men. We see Cromwell brooding over the grave of his son, killed in the Civil War; we see Charles comforting his two youngest children before he is led out to execution. Hughes does his best to portray these men, at times beatified and at times vilified, as men.

The film also gives us some wonderful lines. When protesting the idea of Civil War, Cromwell states "Every man who wages war believes God is on his side. I'll warrant often God should wonder who is on his." and later "When men run out of words, they'll reach for swords" Charles gets this masterpiece as Cromwell advocates for democracy "Democracy, Mr. Cromwell, was a greek drollery based on the foolish notion that there are extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people."

The film does take historic liberties with Cromwell's role in the events leading up to the Civil War -- he was in reality a minor player until his battlefield genius came to the fore. We catch a sense of the spirit of the times in the maelstrom of power politics between Parliament and Crown -- but we miss out on the religious tensions at play, save for one early scene where Cromwell protests the king's order to have candles and ornamentation in churches (an allusion to Archbishop Laud's attempt to make the churches more sacramental and less Calvinistic). Interestingly, the film portrays both men and faithful believers who put their trust in Christ, indeed it deliberately plays on the tensions of both men practicing their faith as a way of bolstering their souls for the minefields of high politics.

All told, I think this a fine film -- a few poor cuts from one scene to the next, overdone music typical of the 1970s, but a fine script, good acting, outstanding costume and set design, combine to make this a fine film. Forget about the critics, this one is worth at least one viewing.

Excelsior
Russell

For further edification, I recommend the Oliver Cromwell website.

Index: Movies

Amazing Grace
The Aristocrats
Borat
Cars
Charlotte's Web
Cromwell
Drumline
Eragon
Garden State
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
High School Musical
The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Love Actually
One Night With the King
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Stage Beauty
Strictly Ballroom
The Village
Whale Rider