Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thoughts on Blue Like Jazz the Movie
Tweet
First, I would say that I was anxious going into the film, worried that it would basically suck and I would be extremely disappointed and frustrated. I, like many other young Christians in the early years of the new millennium, loved the book, and I was worried the movie would taint the name. I remember seeing reports about the attempts to make the movie, and even receiving emails imploring my financial support, and I refrained because I didn't think the book would translate well to the screen. To be honest, I regret that now, because although this movie certainly isn't worthy of an Oscar nominee, it is worth seeing.
So, obviously, my quick review is a "thumbs up;" I liked it. The biggest reason I liked the movie was the same reason that I liked the book - it resonated with me. I could relate to it. In the book, Don Miller does a great job stringing together very honest, transparent feelings and thoughts about church, without being overly critical or hopeless. When I read it, as a recent graduate from Bible school with a theology degree, I felt like he was putting to words the deep feelings I had about my faith. More specifically, feelings of frustration, questions, yearnings for something more, all apart from pious theology talk, and just being real with what it looks and feels like to connect with God.
I saw Blue Like Jazz yesterday with some friends from the cohort, and I thought I would share some thoughts. This is far from a review of the film, but more my personal reaction.
First, I would say that I was anxious going into the film, worried that it would basically suck and I would be extremely disappointed and frustrated. I, like many other young Christians in the early years of the new millennium, loved the book, and I was worried the movie would taint the name. I remember seeing reports about the attempts to make the movie, and even receiving emails imploring my financial support, and I refrained because I didn't think the book would translate well to the screen. To be honest, I regret that now, because although this movie certainly isn't worthy of an Oscar nominee, it is worth seeing.So, obviously, my quick review is a "thumbs up;" I liked it. The biggest reason I liked the movie was the same reason that I liked the book - it resonated with me. I could relate to it. In the book, Don Miller does a great job stringing together very honest, transparent feelings and thoughts about church, without being overly critical or hopeless. When I read it, as a recent graduate from Bible school with a theology degree, I felt like he was putting to words the deep feelings I had about my faith. More specifically, feelings of frustration, questions, yearnings for something more, all apart from pious theology talk, and just being real with what it looks and feels like to connect with God.
I think the movie achieves this same "feeling" but on the screen. It's easy to connect with Don in the scenes where he is an assistant to the youth pastor, called up to the front of the church to help with the kid's sermon. Those of us who have grown up in the church have all been there one time or another. And there are some great tongue-in-cheek jabs at the church, showing that we can't take this all too seriously (like when Don prepares Kool-Aid to serve the kids at the overnight, or the pinata is filled with communion cups rather than candy).
On a deeper level, I appreciate it Don's character admitting, "I am ashamed of Jesus." I've felt that way before, and I distinctly remember my mid-20's as being a time of discovering how I could still say that I was a Christian without being embarrassed. In my opinion, this is a real value of the film, in that it depicts what so many within the evangelical church have been feeling.
Beyond this basic sense of being able to relate to the main character and Don's existential struggles, I appreciate what I perceive to be the basic message of the movie (and the book). There is not a point by point summation of "the good news," or even a quick way to state salvation and God's love for you. Rather, the point is that we have to be honest with our experiences and our feelings about, and toward, God. Don learns at Reed that life has to be lived, and you learn by living life. We can't deny our experiences, good or bad. We have to be real with ourselves and real with God. And that's where we have to start, otherwise we're just fooling ourselves.
In my opinion, this is the power of movie (and the book's) best scene, the "confession booth." Christians and the church are so rarely willing to be honest about the messiness of life and faith. And so when Don admits to his faults, the faults of Christianity, and asks for forgiveness, it is a powerful twist of transparency - something that is so lacking in religion. Furthermore, I feel that this scene communicates to the viewer that it is OK to feel whatever you are feeling about God. So many have left church because they have had questions, thoughts, or feelings that have no place in the church service or the small group discussion. To me, Blue Like Jazz communicates to people the fact that it's OK if your faith is in a state of dis-resolution - if you don't have it all figured out, if you aren't sure what you believe and you have more questions than answers, if you feel like you need to experience freedom more than certainty, and if you just need a chance for some honest self-expression. Thus, the theme and recurrent phrase in the movie - life is like jazz, it doesn't resolve.
From the perspective of a work of art, I would give the movie a B grade at best. But there are certainly worse movies out there, with far worse acting, lack of plot, and cliched, one-dimensional characters. What is very interesting, is to think about the movie as a work of "Christian art." This a very complex conversation, and I'll just offer a view quotes from review I found online.
Boston Globe Review: [The movie gives] believers and those tottering on the edge something to chew on, and it steadfastly refuses to demonize everybody else."
Christianity Today: "Blue Like Jazz is anything but a typical "Christian movie...Christian moviegoers will find much to challenge them, to be sure—but those hoping Don's journey leads him to a clear understanding of the gospel might find Blue Like Jazz a bit unsatisfying." - Essentially, CT criticizes the movie for not being "Christian enough," as they see it.
Jonathan D. Fitzgerald of Patrol (a progressive Christian culture magazine) says a few things about Christian art in general: "It should go without saying that Christians can and do create good art, but they don’t call it Christian art because it is art first. That it was made by a Christian, that it may even in some way communicate something of Christianity, is secondary to its existence as a work of art. If this is not the case, if it is primarily didactic — or in the case of much Christian art, derivative — it cannot be good art...This, of course, is the problem with all so-called Christian art, be it film, music or books: it purports to carry a message for those outside Christianity, while appealing only to those within." He then concludes, "But by the time the lights came up, it was clear: “Blue Like Jazz” is just another Christian movie." - Interestingly, in contrast to CT, the movie is too Christian.
These different reviews, I think, show how difficult it is to make a film that wrestles with specifically evangelical faith and belief, and that comes out with a somewhat positive message. There are many movies and stories that engage religion in an artistic way that maintains quality, but something about evangelicalism keeps it in the "Christian" genre that has dug such a deep hole for itself, it is really tough to climb out.
Even with movies like Blue Like Jazz, that are generally pretty good.
Friday, February 26, 2010
2081: Finally Equal
Tweet
I've always been a huge fan of Kurt Vonnegut. So I was thrilled to see an advertisement for this short film in the latest issue of Paste. The film, 2081, (taken from the first line in the story, "The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal.") is based on the short story, Harrison Bergeron (which you can read in full here, and will only take you about 10 minutes. DO IT!!)
It has long been one of my favorite Vonnegut tales. I love the back handed critique of society, media and of course the overt anarchism. From the trailer (below), the short film also looks to be very enjoyable. Even if the "Nazi regime" look is a little over done. Very excited to see it as soon as possible.
I've always been a huge fan of Kurt Vonnegut. So I was thrilled to see an advertisement for this short film in the latest issue of Paste. The film, 2081, (taken from the first line in the story, "The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal.") is based on the short story, Harrison Bergeron (which you can read in full here, and will only take you about 10 minutes. DO IT!!)
It has long been one of my favorite Vonnegut tales. I love the back handed critique of society, media and of course the overt anarchism. From the trailer (below), the short film also looks to be very enjoyable. Even if the "Nazi regime" look is a little over done. Very excited to see it as soon as possible.
2081 Trailer from 2081 on Vimeo.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Fiction as Life
Tweet
Last weekend I saw "Where the Wilds Things Are" (finally). This weekend, I read "The Catcher in the Rye." Both works of fiction have been met with mixed reviews for a variety of reasons. Some people thought WTWTA was not "true to the book" and took too many liberties. CINR has been banned from high schools because of excessive profanity and sexuality. Yet both are also beloved works of art, embraced and adored by many.
I wasn't sure how to react after seeing WTWTA - it's a very different type of movie. Visually, it is engaging, fun and brilliant. The "wild things" are captivating and I found myself continually studying them, hoping for a better camera shot or longer scene. But the plot and dialogue of the movie left something to be desired - at first take anyway. The flow is very up and down. One minute all the characters are happy, and snuggling in a big friendly sleep pile. Then one gets angry and begins destroying things. Then Max suggests they have a dirt clod fight, and all is well again. Until someone gets hit in the head and it "really hurts." Up and down. Good and bad. No genuine resolve in the end; Max just decides its time to leave, and then he runs home and eats soup with his mother. The end.
Discussing the movie with a friend
, she suggested that the various "wild things" were aspects of Max's psyche, various elements of his mind and personality, representing different feelings or roles that he would play in real life. There is the angry, agressive Carol; the affirming Douglas; the always mumbling but no one listens to (I can't even remember it's name). The wild things are wild like Max's real life is wild. The escape to the place "where the wild things are" is really a brief look into Max's own head, which is really where all of these creatures live anyway - in Max's imagination.
Thinking about the movie from this angle, I was no longer disappointed in the lack of a typical Hollywood plot arc. Instead, I embraced the moments in the movie that felt very true to what I remember my childhood being like: playing the game where the carpet is lava and you can't step on it; chasing the dog around the house; building snow forts; completely random and hilarious comments ("That was my favorite arm!") But WTWTA is more than and accurate depiction of what childhood imaginations and games are like; it shows what all of life is really like.
"The Catcher in the Rye" really grabbed my attention in the author's ability to brutally expose Holden Caufield's attitude toward the entire expanse of society - from the tiniest detail (piano bar performers) to fundamental structures of American life (the education system; dating and family life). At first, Caufield is just funny in his caustic remarks about anything and everything. At times, his actions appear almost as random as Max's "wild things," and they are amusing as a result. When the character makes no recognizable change, but rather continues to follow his own cynical demise, he becomes and antihero. But it doesn't take long before the honest reader can read themselves into the character of Caufield. He says out loud what we all think about the people we see on the street. He wanders the streets aimlessly, holds the phone without dialing a number for twenty minutes, doesn't recognize his own depression until its too late - just like we all have.
To me, both CINTR and WTWTA are powerful, artistic, fictional representations that are very true to life. Often we like to watch movies and read books that result in neat packages and clean stories with well-defined plots and predictable dialogue. But life as fiction as presented by these two works is predictably random. Up and down. Up and down. Cynical and depressing. But somehow in the end it resonates in a severe way because it is true to the human condition. Neither work leaves the viewer/reader totally stranded and hopeless. Both find some sense of pragmatic salvation in the arms of family - a mother or a sister. Both remind us that no matter how crazy things feel, life goes on, and there really is no escape, as much as we want it.
WTWTA, originally a story book for kids, as a movie is an enigmatic mirror of the wildness of everyday life - the kind of life that for a few days Holden Caufield drunkenly walks through - a few days that accurately represent the internal struggle the human race has experienced for the ages.
Last weekend I saw "Where the Wilds Things Are" (finally). This weekend, I read "The Catcher in the Rye." Both works of fiction have been met with mixed reviews for a variety of reasons. Some people thought WTWTA was not "true to the book" and took too many liberties. CINR has been banned from high schools because of excessive profanity and sexuality. Yet both are also beloved works of art, embraced and adored by many.I wasn't sure how to react after seeing WTWTA - it's a very different type of movie. Visually, it is engaging, fun and brilliant. The "wild things" are captivating and I found myself continually studying them, hoping for a better camera shot or longer scene. But the plot and dialogue of the movie left something to be desired - at first take anyway. The flow is very up and down. One minute all the characters are happy, and snuggling in a big friendly sleep pile. Then one gets angry and begins destroying things. Then Max suggests they have a dirt clod fight, and all is well again. Until someone gets hit in the head and it "really hurts." Up and down. Good and bad. No genuine resolve in the end; Max just decides its time to leave, and then he runs home and eats soup with his mother. The end.
Discussing the movie with a friend
, she suggested that the various "wild things" were aspects of Max's psyche, various elements of his mind and personality, representing different feelings or roles that he would play in real life. There is the angry, agressive Carol; the affirming Douglas; the always mumbling but no one listens to (I can't even remember it's name). The wild things are wild like Max's real life is wild. The escape to the place "where the wild things are" is really a brief look into Max's own head, which is really where all of these creatures live anyway - in Max's imagination.Thinking about the movie from this angle, I was no longer disappointed in the lack of a typical Hollywood plot arc. Instead, I embraced the moments in the movie that felt very true to what I remember my childhood being like: playing the game where the carpet is lava and you can't step on it; chasing the dog around the house; building snow forts; completely random and hilarious comments ("That was my favorite arm!") But WTWTA is more than and accurate depiction of what childhood imaginations and games are like; it shows what all of life is really like.
"The Catcher in the Rye" really grabbed my attention in the author's ability to brutally expose Holden Caufield's attitude toward the entire expanse of society - from the tiniest detail (piano bar performers) to fundamental structures of American life (the education system; dating and family life). At first, Caufield is just funny in his caustic remarks about anything and everything. At times, his actions appear almost as random as Max's "wild things," and they are amusing as a result. When the character makes no recognizable change, but rather continues to follow his own cynical demise, he becomes and antihero. But it doesn't take long before the honest reader can read themselves into the character of Caufield. He says out loud what we all think about the people we see on the street. He wanders the streets aimlessly, holds the phone without dialing a number for twenty minutes, doesn't recognize his own depression until its too late - just like we all have.
To me, both CINTR and WTWTA are powerful, artistic, fictional representations that are very true to life. Often we like to watch movies and read books that result in neat packages and clean stories with well-defined plots and predictable dialogue. But life as fiction as presented by these two works is predictably random. Up and down. Up and down. Cynical and depressing. But somehow in the end it resonates in a severe way because it is true to the human condition. Neither work leaves the viewer/reader totally stranded and hopeless. Both find some sense of pragmatic salvation in the arms of family - a mother or a sister. Both remind us that no matter how crazy things feel, life goes on, and there really is no escape, as much as we want it.
WTWTA, originally a story book for kids, as a movie is an enigmatic mirror of the wildness of everyday life - the kind of life that for a few days Holden Caufield drunkenly walks through - a few days that accurately represent the internal struggle the human race has experienced for the ages.
Good point...
Tweet
...about Avatar, made by David Brooks from the NYT -
"would it be totally annoying to point out that the whole White Messiah fable, especially as Cameron applies it, is kind of offensive?
...about Avatar, made by David Brooks from the NYT -
"would it be totally annoying to point out that the whole White Messiah fable, especially as Cameron applies it, is kind of offensive?
It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.
It’s just escapism, obviously, but benevolent romanticism can be just as condescending as the malevolent kind — even when you surround it with pop-up ferns and floating mountains."
What is so sad is that so many people I know (including myself) did not notice this when we saw the movie. We recognized the story wasn't very original, but we didn't recognize how underhandedly offensive it was.
I'm sorry.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Poverty Porn
Tweet
I glanced through a Time article today that talked about how Slumdog Millionaire is having a hard time making it big in India, even though it is so popular in the States, even up for several Academy Awards. The Time article states that for Indians, the scenes from Mumbai that are so captivating for Americans are commonplace, and so not entertaining at all. One person interviewed said, "There's nothing new in it for us. It's saturated with stereotyped images of India."
While it's interesting to note that culture is most fascinating to foreigners, the article touches on another profound and also disturbing element of American entertainment: "Poverty Porn." (BTW - when I googled those two words together, I didn't see any main wikipedia articles or anything similar using the term). In fact, the Time article states that about 40 Mumbai slum dwellers protested the film with signs that said, "I Am Not a Dog" and "Poverty fo Sale."
Unfortunately the article doesn't explore the idea of poverty voyureism much more than brief allusions - but it's clear (to me at least) that Americans get a deep sense of entertainment out of vicariously experiencing poverty and suffering through film. Here are some of my completely unsolicited, unreasearched, unfounded, and unfavorable thoughts:
1) We feel guilty in our day-to-day life about our wealth and excess, and so when we watch a film sypathetically identifying with a poor and abused lead character, we walk out of the film feeling like we did something good for the world. We supported a "good" film; we loved a lovable character; we dropped our money in the huge hollywood collection plate. So viewing the movie makes us feel good, when in reality it has no connection to doing anything to help those actually in need.
2) It is easier for us to watch a movie from a safe distance, than to actually learn about real people going through real suffering. When we leave the movie we might think, "Wow if that was a real person, I would help him. But he's not real, so I won't." Whereas if we were to peruse the web pages of World Vision and learn about the real life tragedies that happen every day, we would actually be compelled to do something, and would feel even more guilty about our inactivity and self-indulgence.
3) There is an odd, deep, and even somewhat perverted entertainment that results in viewing the poverty of others. Perhaps it is linked somewhat to horror films, but genuine feelings of simpathy (is it feeling anything?) are somehow entertaining to Americans who have a hard time feeling much about anything in everyday life.
Obviously this idea of "Poverty Porn" is really fascinating to me, perhaps because I know I am a guilty spectator, and so if you know of any other resources, pass them on to me please
While it's interesting to note that culture is most fascinating to foreigners, the article touches on another profound and also disturbing element of American entertainment: "Poverty Porn." (BTW - when I googled those two words together, I didn't see any main wikipedia articles or anything similar using the term). In fact, the Time article states that about 40 Mumbai slum dwellers protested the film with signs that said, "I Am Not a Dog" and "Poverty fo Sale."
Unfortunately the article doesn't explore the idea of poverty voyureism much more than brief allusions - but it's clear (to me at least) that Americans get a deep sense of entertainment out of vicariously experiencing poverty and suffering through film. Here are some of my completely unsolicited, unreasearched, unfounded, and unfavorable thoughts:
1) We feel guilty in our day-to-day life about our wealth and excess, and so when we watch a film sypathetically identifying with a poor and abused lead character, we walk out of the film feeling like we did something good for the world. We supported a "good" film; we loved a lovable character; we dropped our money in the huge hollywood collection plate. So viewing the movie makes us feel good, when in reality it has no connection to doing anything to help those actually in need.
2) It is easier for us to watch a movie from a safe distance, than to actually learn about real people going through real suffering. When we leave the movie we might think, "Wow if that was a real person, I would help him. But he's not real, so I won't." Whereas if we were to peruse the web pages of World Vision and learn about the real life tragedies that happen every day, we would actually be compelled to do something, and would feel even more guilty about our inactivity and self-indulgence.
3) There is an odd, deep, and even somewhat perverted entertainment that results in viewing the poverty of others. Perhaps it is linked somewhat to horror films, but genuine feelings of simpathy (is it feeling anything?) are somehow entertaining to Americans who have a hard time feeling much about anything in everyday life.
Obviously this idea of "Poverty Porn" is really fascinating to me, perhaps because I know I am a guilty spectator, and so if you know of any other resources, pass them on to me please
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)