This One for Movie-Lovers

I love watching movies, hollywood or otherwise. Before I had kids, I went to cinema quite often with my wife, but those moments have long gone. But I still watch movies in DVDs. To me the ones that stand out are those that depicts the various sides of human hearts. At times I wonder though how does a Christian should approach a film? John Frame gave a list of questions to that end. He wrote a piece in the past on this subject which you can read here.

I know this is a long list, but if we apply these before and during our movie-wathing sessions, I think we can get a max benefit out of the movie. Hence, we don't just wear a consumer hat, but also an analyser hat. I have started trying that.

1.Who wrote the film? Who produced it? Who directed it? Do we know through the writings and previous work of these people anything about their philosophy of life? The previous works of actors are also important. Actors contribute much to the quality of a film, little to its fundamental conception. But actors do tend to sign on to projects with which they have some ideological affinity (assuming financial rewards are not otherwise determinative). Mel Gibson almost never takes on films with a heavy sexual element; Mickey Rourke almost always does. The presence of certain actors, granting that they sometimes go "against type," can tell you something about the message of a film.

2.Is it well-made, aesthetically? Are the production and acting values of high quality? These factors may have little to do with the "message." But they do tend to determine the extent of the film's cultural impact, and that is important for our purposes. If a film is well-made, it can have a large impact upon the culture for good or ill. (Of course some bad films also have a major impact!)

3.Is it honest, true to its own position? This is another mark of "quality." Generally speaking, an honest film, regardless of its point of view, will have a larger cultural impact than one which blunts its points.

4.What kind of film is it? Fantasy? Biography? Realistic drama? Comedy? Obviously each film must be judged according to its purpose and genre. We don't demand of a fantasy the kind of historical accuracy we demand of a supposedly literal biography.

5.What is the world view of the film? Is it theistic or atheistic? Christian or non-Christian? If non-Christian, is its main thrust relativistic or dogmatic? How does it employ the theme of "equality?" Is there any role for providence, for God? Is the film pessimistic or optimistic? Does the action move in deterministic fashion, or is there a significant role for human choice?

6.What is the plot? What problems do the characters face? Can these problems be correlated in some way with the Fall of mankind in Adam? Does the film in effect deny the Fall, or does it affirm it in some way?

7.Are the problems soluble? If so, how? What methods are available to the characters so that they can find the answers they need?

8.What is the moral stance of the film? Is the film relativistic, dogmatic, or both in some combination? What are its attitudes toward sex, family, human life, property, truth, heart-attitudes? What is the source of moral norms, if any? Does justice prevail?

9.In comedy, what is it that is funny? What are the typical incongruities? Who is the butt of the jokes? (Christians? traditional values? the wicked? the righteous? God? Satan?) Is the humor anarchic? Is it rationality gone awry? Is it bitter or gentle? Does it rely on caricatures? If so, of whom?

10.Are there allusions to historical events, literary works, other films, famous people, Scripture, etc. that would give us some idea where the filmmakers are coming from? We should remember, of course, that allusions may be negative, positive, ironic, or merely decorative. A biblical allusion does not necessarily indicate acceptance of biblical values.

11.What are the chief images of the film? Is there anything interesting about the lighting, the camera angles, the sound, the timing which would reinforce a particular theme? Are there significant symbols?

12.Are there any explicit religious themes? Christ-figures? Does the film express significant attitudes toward Christ, the clergy, or the church? Does it distort Christianity or present it at its worst? Or does it present it with some insight and/or sympathy? Does it recognize the element of personal piety in people's lives? There are exceptions. If so, does it approve or disapprove of it? What about Satan, the demons, the occult? Does the film recognize their activity in some way? Is the devil taken seriously? If so, how is he dealt with?

Seven Pounds, Sense of Guilt and God's Grace

I like this flick. It brings to surface a side of human nature that often is neglected in typical Hollywood movies. The plot revolves around a man called Tim Thomas (Will Smith) who because of multitasking (driving and texting) found himself in a car crash. Seven people who were passengers in his car died. Everyone died but him.

He then tried to live his life so radically different after the crash. He quit his job as an aeronautical engineer, then chose 7 people to whom he would be doing something good; donating what he has to them freely, voluntarily with no strings whatsover attached. These noble acts he did as his way to pay his 'penance', silent the roaring sense of guilt within him.

He donated his lung lobe to his brother, Ben.
He donates part of his liver to a child services worker named Holly.
He donated a kidney to George, a junior hockey coach.
He donated bone marrow to a young boy named Nicholas.
He donated his beach house to Connie Tepos
He donated his corneas to Ezra Turner, a blind meat salesman who plays the piano.
He donated his heart to Emily Posa, a self-employed greeting card printer.

To help the last two individuals, Ezra and Emily, Tim has to literally die. Hence, this movie has a sad ending. Tim fills the bathtub at a motel he stays (he is now homeless as his house is already donated) with ice water to preserve his vital organs, climbs in, and then commits suicide by pulling his box jellyfish into the water with him.

If you are confused what the title "Seven Pounds" refers to (as I was before), someone suggested that it is derived from the expression "pound of flesh" which in its original meaning refers to a terrible burden or debt which has to be repaid by whatever mean. Originated in Shakespeare's play Merchant of Venice, 1596. In this case Will Smith's character feels that he has to pay a pound of flesh for each of the seven lifes lost in the car accident for which he felt that he caused.

I think this is a powerful movie. Interestingly, it was mostly reviewed rather negatively. A reviewer at New York Times, for example, wrote the following:

An I.R.S. agent who wants only to help people. This is a nice, small joke that provides a few grace notes of levity in what is otherwise a lugubrious exercise in spiritual bushwa. For all its pious, earnest air, “Seven Pounds” cries out to be remade as an Asian horror movie, so that the deep, creepy grotesqueness of its governing premise might be allowed to flourish, rather than to fester beneath the surface.

As it is, the movie is basically an inverted, twisted tale of revenge. Ben Thomas, Mr. Smith’s character, is in essence a benevolent vigilante, harassing, stalking and spying on unsuspecting citizens for their own good, and also to punish himself. Why such misery should also be inflicted on an innocent, affirmation-hungry audience — and also on the marvelous Ms. Dawson, who plays one of Ben’s victim-beneficiaries — is another matter entirely.

But maybe I’m approaching this in the wrong way. Maybe “Seven Pounds” isn’t a spiritual parable about redemption or forgiveness or salvation or whatever, but rather a collection of practical lessons. Don’t drive while using a BlackBerry. Fertilize your rose bushes with banana peels — sorry, that was a spoiler. But please, whatever you do, don’t touch the jellyfish.

I’m serious. Don’t.

I think the above reviewer missed the entire plot. On the contrary, the movie powerfully portrays how it feels to live with a strong sense of guilt. It haunts someone and stubbornly comes back at us without fail throughout our lives. Perhaps the clearest way to really know the most basic foundation of our life is our reactions to failure. How do we handle failure and deal with a sense of guilt. In that movie, Tim spent his entire life trying to redeem himself and seek forgiveness to be able move on, but he can't.

This tells something about us. As fallen creatures we all made mistakes. We can't escape from that sense of guilt. The greater the mistake, the more haunting the feeling we have as a consequence of that mistake. Have you been forgiven? Have you experienced God's unconditional forgiveness so that you can move on? Or are you still beating yourself up?

As Christians, we can say that our foundation is the grace of God. But in reality it may not be that grace of God. But the quality, the purity, the intensity of our commitment to God. In the final analysis, it's still resting on your performance. It's still resting on you. It's still resting on something beside God. We will never experience the grace of God if we always treat it as a challenge to be a more committed person, a more faithful person, a morally better person. We need to stop trying, and start resting on the the grace of God.

Cameron: "I'll Only Kiss My Wife"

A new movie Fireproof by Kirk Cameron (the trouble maker in the old fave Growing Pains) is soon to be released. In the movie, however, he has to kiss the actress playing his wife, which he refused to do. “I have a commitment not to kiss any other woman" was cited as the reason. Read his interview transcript and movie clip in this MSNBC site.

Shawshank Redemption

I was just turning on the TV last Thu when one of the local TV networks re-ran the Shawshank Redemption, a 1994 classic which I never had seen before. After quickly pondering the likely consequences of watching that movie at the cost of not doing other things, I decided to sit and watch! Two hours later (or more with TV ads), I remember thinking to myself, "Great movie!"

The overarching theme is of course HOPE, a crucial thing in a make-or-break context like State Prison. I have been pondering for a long time the tranforming effects of prison on inmates. Many world leaders were somewhat changed or shaped during their prison experiences. Yes, they emerged much stronger individuals with rock solid convictions. From Gandhi to Solhenitzyn to King, Jr to Mandela, just to name a few big names for simplicity sake (though many unknowns had the same experiences).

The main character in this Stephen King's screenplay, Andy Defresne (Tim Robbins), was sent to a prison for a crime he didn't commit. But he brought hope to a bunch of inmates who have lost all hope. "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies", that's what he believed in, which were contagious, sparking new excitement and infusing new meaning of life.

The best part of the movie that I thought was powerful was shown by Brooks, an old inmate who has been inside for 50 years and was now up for his parole, which means he can get out and enjoy life outside prison. However, Brooks has been 'institutionalized", slowly and oddly becoming too comfortable in prison. Days after he was out, he's got a job at a supermarket but grew increasingly insecure and disoriented. He in fact thought of committing a new crime so that he can be sent back to prison.

Here is what his mate told of Brooks "The man's been in here fifty years,... Fifty years! This is all he knows. In here, he's an important man. He's an educated man. Outside, he's nothin'! Just a used up con with arthritis in both hands." The same friend then explained how prison experience shaped Brooks: "These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That's institutionalized... They send you here for life, and that's exactly what they take. The part that counts, anyway."

So reluctant was Brooks to enjoy his newfound freedom on the other side of the fence that he ended up hanging himself. That's what happened when hope is lost. A running commentary was again provided by his mate, who also got his parole, but didn't want to end up like Brooks:

There is a harsh truth to face. No way I'm gonna make it on the outside. All I do anymore is think of ways to break my parole. Terrible thing, to live in fear. Brooks Hatlen knew it. Knew it all too well. All I want is to be back where things make sense. Where I won't have to be afraid all the time.

I am always fascinated by the question: Why do some people bounce back from difficult circumstances and emerge much stronger, and some give everything up? What makes some so resilient that when they are knocked down, they are not knocked out? Prison is one of those crucible experiences that can make you or break you, but certainly there are many other. Victor Frank's chronicle of his Nazi camp concentration experience provided many clues to this question. These are his words penned in his bestselling book Man's Search for Meaning.

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”

He was able to transform his horrible experience into something positive, in the form of logotherapy for which he was known a pioneer in the field, a technique used to treat people who undergo harsh realities of life. Later he wrote that "What is to give light must endure burning.” Which reminds me of Nietzschean maxim that "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

The question remains however why some people can redeem life's darkest moments and popping up on the surface with steel-coated but tender-hearted conviction that can move mountains?