Skip to main content

moved by movies

I watched two movies this past week that brought out some strong emotions in me. When I asked my friends about their opinions, I was surprised to hear that they had not experienced or even seen the same things I had seen. Well, that merited some thought on my part as to what exactly I was responding to, so here are my conclusions. Please be warned that if you have not seen these movies, there might be some spoilers included below.

1. No Country For Old Men. This movie is garnering a lot of attention and nominations for its quirky characters and clever script. I went into it expecting to be intrigued. Halfway though the film, I wondered if I should walk out. I found it altogether too dark and somewhat predictable in that "I've got an awful feeling about this" way. I stayed to the end, which contained a huge dark stain followed by a glimpse of light. I left the theatre bothered, feeling ill at ease. Like I should take some action to make things right, but there was nothing to do. Indeed, the script and directing and acting display quite a bit of talent, but the story is heinous. It is a horrific chase. One man kills everything that stands between him and some money (and some random people he happens to encounter, just because it is what he does) in the most cold-blooded and calculating manner, yet he comes off as strangely interesting and fascinating. Or at least he is supposed to. And I think that is what bothered me the most: that something this evil can be made to fascinate us. Yes, the film is new and innovative, but I find that what we hail as original is often something that dares to cross a line of good taste or perhaps moral codes and titillates us for a moment, but in the end, adds nothing to us and has no lasting value. Every character in the movie, save a few, sacrifices themselves to the money. Innocence is mowed down and stomped on and obliterated at every turn. What is intriguing about that?

2. I am Legend. This story is also about a chase. One man is trying to survive in a world devastated by a horrible virus that turned most humans into savages. Yes, the dark souls chase him, but that is not the real chase. The real hunt is this sole survivor's fight against isolation, time, danger, and difficulty in order to find a cure for the very ones who are out to kill him. It is his sole purpose for surviving. Sure, the story is not that clever (some say it is too similar to 28 Days Later) or the dialogue that unique or original and there are some continuity and consistency issues, but the character has a big heart - he believes in something important. I find that talent is no substitute for belief. It is not money that he chases. It is salvation. The main character quotes one of his heroes, Bob Marley, reminding himself that evil does not take a day off, so neither can he.

I have been told that I cannot properly separate fiction from fact and that is why I sometimes overreact. While I will admit a certain truth in that observation, in another way I believe I am onto something. We are one - whole beings. We were never meant to separate our lives and selves into all these different compartments. What happens in our body, in our mind, in our emotions, in our work, in our play, in our imaginations - all these things affect us as people and it is naive to deny that this is so. How ridiculous to assume that what touches one part of me will have no affect on who I am or my wholeness as a human being. This is by no means an advocation of avoidance, but an encouragement to enter the correct chase. What are you chasing? What are you serving? What are you sacrificing for?

This is some snowy foliage behind my house.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

what binds us together?

For the past few weeks, I have been reading a book by famed psychiatrist M. Scott Peck which chronicles his travels (together with his wife) through remote parts of the UK in search of prehistoric stones. The book is part travel journal, part spiritual musings, part psychology, and part personal anecdotes. A mixed bag, to be sure, and not always a winning combination. At one point, I considered putting the book aside, not finishing it, but then Peck started writing about community. He is no stranger to the concept. He has led hundreds of community-building workshops over the years, helped start a non-profit organisation dedicated to fostering community, and written a compelling book about the topic, one which greatly impacted me when I read it oh so long ago.[1]

In preparation for a course I am teaching next year, I have been doing quite a bit of study on unity and community. Once you start thinking about it, you see and hear evidence of it everywhere. (See my blog on the impact of b…

job hunting

I am on the hunt for a job. PhD in hand, I am a theologian for hire. The thing is, not a lot of places are hiring theologians these days, and if they are, they are usually looking for scholars with skills and experience outside my area of expertise. Today I found job opportunities for those knowledgeable in Religion, Race, and Colonialism, Philosophy and History of Religion, Islam and Society, Languages of Late Antiquity, Religion, Ethics, and Politics, and an ad for a Molecular Genetic Pathologist. Not one posting for a Dramatic Theologian with  a side order of Spirituality and a dash of Methodology.

I know, I know. My expectations are a bit unrealistic if I believe I will find an exact match for my particular skills. I know that job descriptions are wish lists to some extent, so no candidate is ever a perfect match. I also realize that one must adapt one's skill set according to the requirements of the job and be flexible. But there are so few jobs which come within ten or even…

building the church

Imagine two scenarios: 1) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Ask them to come together and put their sticks onto a table. Invariably, you end up with a random pile of sticks on a table. 2) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Show a picture of a popsicle stick bird feeder and ask people to come together and put their sticks on a table according to the picture. You will end up with the beginnings of a bird feeder on a table.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both, each person brought what they had and contributed it to the collective. However, in the first scenario, there were no guidelines, no plan, and no right or wrong way to pile the sticks. People came, placed their sticks on the table, and walked away. In the second scenario, people were given a plan to follow and as a result, something specific was built. Instead of walking away after they made their contribution, people huddled around the table to watch what was being built. Some were…