Pitching your tents: Christians at the movies

When George Lucas resurrected his Star Wars movie franchise, millions of fans were ecstatic. People lined up for days in advance to see the premiere of the Star Wars prequel, The Phantom Menace (1999). Some people donned Storm Trooper uniforms and Jedi ropes; some fans even pitched tents and lived outside movie theatres for weeks. I must admit that I cut classes at Western the day it premiered and saw the movie along with Chewbacca and Darth Maul look-a-likes. As Christians, what are we to make of all this hype? Well, movies and pitching tents causes me to recall a story in Genesis that may help us consider Christians at the movies.

In Genesis, we read about Lot “pitching his tents toward Sodom” (Gen 13:12); the next time we read about Lot (Ch. 19) he is living in Sodom, a wicked and abominable city. We find him applying skewed “righteousness” in an unrighteous situation (v.8), we discover Lot’s wife has become too attached to a worldly lifestyle (v. 26), his son-in-laws fail to take life seriously (v. 14) and his children lack a moral compass (vv.30-38). Whatever righteousness Lot had before he went to Sodom was dramatically overshadowed by the unrighteous culture he immersed himself and his family in. I use this phrase, “pitching my tents toward Sodom” to remind me to keep some distance between my family and the influence of the immoral culture we live in. As Christians, we are constantly struggling to be “in” the world, but not “of” the world, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to steer clear of “Sodom” these days. Through television, the Internet, movies and magazines, Christians are bombarded with the influences of our society. Perhaps the most potent of these influences is Hollywood.

Movies impact our culture in a way no other medium has before. With drama and realism, movies present a made-for-film world where God’s reality—His decrees, His design, and His plan—often have no bearing. As a result, social values—the cultural blueprint for how we interact with each other and with God—are being created, shaped and solidified through the magic of movie-making. Our children, our churches, the next generation of citizens, the people we are trying to reach with the gospel, are all being influenced by movies. So we can’t stick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away; Hollywood is not going away. And, well, there is nothing blatantly wrong about Christians enjoying popcorn and a movie. So how are Christians to respond to movies?

Christians need to become “film literate”—we need to be able to recognize, understand and speak to the filmmaker’s message. The challenge is the subtlety of the message. Filmmakers aren’t literally standing behind a pulpit or on a soapbox preaching their values or their version of the world, but they are saying something, and they are saying it with millions of dollars, heaps of glitz and pizazz, and great soundtracks. Not all films present non-Christian worldviews; arguably, some great films are very consistent with the moral laws of God’s created universe. There are, however, many films that directly or indirectly oppose God’s creation. Sometimes the movies desensitize us to sin, making evil tolerable or even palatable. Sometimes films uphold a right belief, but teach wrong applications of that belief. We need to be able to identify what these films are impressing upon us as viewers. This means, when choosing movies to watch for yourself or your family, you need to do more than count how many expletives or explosions there are. It is not the violence, per se, but the values presented that make the largest impact on viewers. Movies labelled as “family”, for example, may not have a single swear word or a single act of violence, but they may teach a lesson that children who disobey their parents are doing the right thing, or that the end justifies the means, or that romance is the key to happiness in life… Be prepared to discuss with your family the values presented in the films, and contrast them to the true values of God’s way.

If you are in doubt about whether a movie is OK to watch, then just don’t bother watching it. If you are viewing a movie and feel your “tents are pitched too close to Sodom,” leave the theatre or turn off the DVD. The Apostle Paul writes to the Philippians, “Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell of these things.” (Philippians 4:8). Where are you pitching your tents?

Useful aids for movie viewers: Roger’s Video website provides an online parent guide, and Plugged In (Focus on the Family) provides an excellent Christian guide, with reviews and commentary on new released DVDs and movies still at the theatres. Use these resources to make wise decisions and to be aware of the message being conveyed through this powerful medium.

Christian Movie-making… an oxymoron?

The Apostle Paul went to Mars Hill, the philosophical and religious centre of Athens and he spoke to the people gathered there in the manner of the day; he referenced their gods, their poetry, and their way of thinking. The Apostles also spoke in marketplaces and at religious centres—the places where people gathered. If we are going to continue the missionary work of proclaiming the gospel to the culture we live in, we ought to go where they are gathering and speak to them in a manner they understand. Since we live in a visual culture, Christians need to speak to the world in a voice they can see and hear. This means that gifted and talented Christians need to enter the world of movie-making.

According to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), over one billion movie tickets were sold in Canada/US during 2009. MPAA also reports that 67% of the population of Canada/US are movie-goers. Movie theatres are where the people are gathering; movies are the media they are listening to and watching. Given the fact that our culture is being powerfully shaped by false worldviews presented in films, Christians need to provide a counter worldview, a worldview grounded in the truth of God’s created universe.

Since film is a very realistic medium, it lends itself very well to the Christian gospel message. Christianity is no abstract, pie-in-the-sky, philosophical religion. It is a real, gritty, dirt-under-the-finger-nails faith. It impacts the lives of real people living in a real world. Film can clearly and powerfully show how the gospel transforms people’s lives where they are—in a real, gritty, dirt-under-the-finger-nails world. Because of this realism, visual media can be a scary realm for Christians. It pulls us out of our Christian comfort-zone of “stained glass windows” and “polished-wood pews.” But Christianity speaks to the whole world, to its beauty and its ugliness. So Christians need to use the advantage God has given them as film-makers to visually and accurately depict the world as it really is. This includes human suffering, but also human value and meaning; the influence of evil is part of our world, but so are the power of providence and the role of grace. Hollywood rarely portrays the world as it actually is; this is because Hollywood isn’t interested in beauty, goodness or truth—it is interested in box office receipts and the bottom line.

God has blessed many Christians with the gifts, talents and technical skills to make good movies. Lately, some very interesting Christian-themed and Christian-made movies have appeared—albeit briefly—in theatres around the world. Granted, there have also been some embarrassing and poorly made films as well. Like all things done in the name of Christ, it should be done with excellence. This excellence should be seen in both the message and medium; in other words, Christians should not only present a right message, but also preserve and perfect the “art” of film-making, which includes subtlety, beauty, goodness and truth. Some would argue that we should not compete with the world on their turf; but the truth is it’s not their turf. The entire world is under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This world is His turf. If God is calling you to make movies in His name, then go and make a great movie.

Screwtape: The Movie...?!

In February of last year, Walden Media announced that it would be releasing a film adaptation of C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters. Douglas Gresham (Lewis’s “stepson”) will be producing the film. As exciting as this sounds, I have no idea how they are planning on making this adaptation. I don’t think Walden Media really knows either! In April 2008, the website, “The High Calling”, had an interview with Walden Media President, Michael Flaherty. This is—I think—the latest news on the subject.

High Calling: Can you give any news about when Screwtape or Dawn Treader will come out?

Michael Flaherty: The first time I spoke with you, I had just received the first draft of Dawn Treader. Literally as we were speaking it was there on my desk. I hadn’t even opened it up yet. I couldn’t wait to read it, though, because Eustace is one of my favorite characters.
Dawn Treader is moving very well. Michael Apted, who directed Amazing Grace, is directing it. He also directed Coal Miner’s Daughter and a bunch of others. He’s a great director. He’s the president of the Directors Guild.

Screwtape on the other hand is just a really tricky adaptation.

HC: I think a big part of being faithful to that work is keeping it dark in a way that's probably going to bother some people. I don't know how that works with movie profitability, but Screwtape always takes the approach of the demons. They have to be the heroes—even if they're tragic heroes—for it to be faithful to what Lewis did.

MF: We're trying to find that balance between the comedy and the stakes. We’re working hard on the script. One of the questions we're asking is how do you show the real transformation that happens inside a person.

HC: Screwtape keeps encouraging the patient to go through the motions in his daily life and work.

MF: You just nailed the entire paradox of this project. The book is so clever, because Screwtape is saying things like, "Have them write the check out to Unicef." Just have him writing, saying, "Oh boy, this is going to hurt." It goes back to that great Corinthians passage, you can do all of these things, but if you do them without love, it's worthless. We're trying to figure out how to illustrate that. What I love about Screwtape, what I love about the Gospel is all this external behavioural stuff that too often people confuse as central to our faith, is just an element of it. What really matters is the outpouring of love and the reflection of love.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

A new documentary is being released called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film tackles the one sided approach in academia to the evolution debate.

Ben Stein, who features in the film, said, "I have always assumed that scientists were free to ask any question, to pursue any line of inquiry, without fear of reprisal," Stein tells moviegoers. "But recently I have been alarmed to discover that this is not the case." He asks, "Darwin challenged the consensus view, and that's how we got Darwinism. If Darwin wanted to challenge the consensus today, how would he do it?"

To Focus on the Family, he goes on to say, "Why do we allow, even celebrate, dissent in every other area of society, but not here? I've found that people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism. So this tells me that Darwinists are afraid. ... Darwin was on to something gigantic. At the very least, he was on to changes within species. But whether there's ever been a provable observation of a new species being created, I don't think there has been. How did the whole thing start? How did the cell get so complex? Who created it all? Where did it come from?"

Check out the complete review on Plugged In.

The New Beowulf: Death of a Hero?

“The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf; the Christ-god has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear and shame.”
Beowulf, 2007 (director Zemeckis)

The Old English poem, Beowulf, is one of my favourite works of English literature. Last year, in my enthusiasm and excitement for this poem, I rushed out and purchased the DVD of the newly released modern film version entitled, Beowulf and Grendel. To my disappointment, the noble culture and heroic landscape of the poem was translated into a misguided but strong culture that was being eradicated by Christian usurpers. The result of the "Christian impact" (as portrayed in the film) was a replacement of the original, pure culture by disillusionment, cynicism and weakness. The only wise and stable character in the film is a sorcery-practicing witch (where does she fit into the original poem?). Beowulf is portrayed as an arrogant charlatan, who learns (too late) that the true hero of the story is Grendel (a misunderstood cromagnum man) who is trying to avenge the prejudicial and unfounded murder of his father. Huh?

This year, I was more cautious when the Robert Zemeckis’s animated film Beowulf was released on DVD in February. I resolved not to make any rash purchases. Curiosity overwhelmed me, however, and despite the mysterious presence of Angelina Jolie in the film, I rented it.

To my delight, what I found was a dazzling animation, a visually satisfying recreation of the world of Beowulf. To my disappointment, I found another anti-Christian rendering of the poem. Focus on the Family’s movie review site Plugged In, gives a candid review of the positives and negatives of this film version from a Christian perspective. Unfortunately, there are more negatives than positives.

The real poem---the poem I admire---is the earliest major literary work in the English language. Written by an anonymous Christian poet in the 8th century, the work describes a Scandinavian-based myth/legend; the primary subject is the humble Geat hero, Beowulf, and his battling of two monsters and a dragon. Despite the pagan context, the poet infuses a Christian worldview into the story, what Douglas Wilson describes as redeemed “northernness” (Wilson 4). Literary scholar, J.R.R. Tolkien, also underscores the Christian foundation of the poem. His essay, entitled “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics,” was described by recent Beowulf translator Seamus Heaney as “epoch-making” and “brilliant literary treatment” of the poem (Heaney xi). In this essay, Tolkien rejects the theory that “[Beowulf] is a string of pagan lays edited by monks” or that “it is the work of a learned but inaccurate Christian antiquarian” (8). He also rejects the notion that the poem was written by “muddle-headed” and “beer-bemused Anglo-Saxons” (8). Tolkien argues that Beowulf “moves in a northern heroic age imagined by a Christian, and therefore has a noble and gentle quality” (45). Tolkien cites another writer who explains that Beowulf's heroic quality is more distinctly “a Christian knight” heroism than a Greco-Roman mythological heroism (20). Tolkien also compares Beowulf’s continual battle with monsters and foes to Christians battling the “enemies of the one God, ece Dryhten” (eternal Lord); like Beowulf, Christians were (and are) “hemmed in a hostile world” (22).

According to an interview on the DVD bonus content, the co-screenwriters Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary believe that they are undoing the edits made by supposed monks, monks who wrecked the poem by Christianizing it. In the film, Beowulf laments, “The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf; the Christ-god has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear and shame.”

On the contrary, Christ is the ultimate hero, the only true authentic hero in history. Literary heroes face incredible adversaries; Odysseus faces the Cyclops, Beowulf faces Grendel, St. George faces the dragon. The Christ-hero faces man’s greatest adversary---death---and he defeats it. Then Christ promises to battle our enemies in and through us. The screenwriters seemed to miss this central theme: before Christ, the world of Beowulf was an endless cycle of death and defeat. Christ brings true victory and ultimately, true heroism.

The screenwriters’ and director’s efforts to restore Beowulf to its original form by “undoing” the edits by monks is ironic. The only editing that actually occurred in this film adaptation is the edits made to remove the fundamental Christian elements. Another ironic aspect is the confessions of the screenwriters and the director that they hated Beowulf when they had to read it is high school. Who hired these guys? Question number one should have been, do you like the story? Question number two should have been, have you actually read the story?

Avoid the film and read the poem yourself. Students of the poem should be especially wary. As Paul Asay from Plugged In writes, “The film has very little to do with the book… So anyone who uses this film as a sort of CliffsNotes is bound to get all the questions wrong on the semester test.” I recently read Irish poet Seamus Heaney’s New York Times bestseller translation of Beowulf this fall and I highly recommend it.

• Heaney, Seamus. “Introduction” pp. ix-xxx. Beowulf. Trans. S. Heaney. New York: Norton, 2001.
  


• Tolkien, J.R.R. “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics”. pp. 5-48.The Monsters and the Critics and other Essays. Ed. C. Tolkien. London: Harper, 2006.
  


• Wilson, Douglas. “North of the World” pp.4-5. Credenda Agenda. Vol. 9 No. 4 Idaho: Community Evangelical Fellowship, 1997.

Shake Hands with the Devil

Last night, instead of grading the ever-growing pile of essays and assignments, I watched the film Shake Hands with the Devil. The film is based on Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire’s autobiographical book Shake Hands with the Devil: The failure of Humanity in Rwanda. It deals with the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the United Nations reluctance to intervene. Within the span of a month, close to one million people---men, women and children---were butchered, mostly with machetes.

The film is brilliant. Award winning Canadian actor Roy Dupuis gives a powerful and convincing portrayal of Dallaire. The cinematography is beautifully rendered, depicting the stunning landscape of Rwanda (amazingly, the movie was actually filmed on location in Rwanda using the historical sites of the events portrayed). Although the historical violence was gruesome and barbarous, the violence in the film is subtly depicted but powerfully implied. Unlike The film Hotel Rwanda, which loosely covers the same events, Shake Hands is less graphic. There are, however, some shots of corpses and mutilated bodies in Shake Hands, but the film focuses more on Dallaire’s reactions to the atrocities. The impact of the horrors of the Rwanda crisis is conveyed forcefully by Dupuis. The filmmakers frequently limit the viewers to see firsthand the atrocities; rather we are only permitted to see Dupuis’s reaction to corpses and violence. As a result, the depth of the situation resonates with viewers.

The film raises the question of foreign intervention in domestic affairs. Certainly, UN peacekeeping missions should not “take sides” in a dispute but was there not a mandate to protect lives and actually "keep peace"? While the atrocities were unfolding, the US and other nations refused to use the word “genocide”---had the term been officially accepted, international law demands intervention. Like the Dallaire himself, the film “pulls no punches in his condemnation of top UN officials, expedient Belgian policy makers and senior members of the Clinton administration who chose to do nothing as Dallaire pleaded for reinforcements and revised rules of engagement.”**

Despite the unpleasant and gruesome content, I highly recommend the film. Its relevance is especially poignant in light of recent national debate over Canada’s role in Afghanistan. It also asks the question of legitimate use of force. At one point in the film, a Rwandan woman cries out to Dallaire asking why he didn’t protect the victims of a recent attack: “Why don’t you protect us?! You have guns!” Even more poignant is Dallaire’s use of his personal weapon. He never fires his gun until the end of the film. The reason for the display of force is to protect three goats. A couple of stray dogs were attacking the goats, and in order to protect them, he fires his gun at the attackers. The result is the goats are saved. The implication is this: had Dallaire been permitted to use force against the aggressive instigators of violence (symbolically the dogs), he could have saved the innocent Rwandans (symbolically the goats).

The trouble with pointing fingers is that we are arguing in the realm of “what if…?” If the UN had responded with force, would the genocide have been quelled? Dallaire and the filmakers makes a powerful argument that UN intervention would have prevailed. I am reminded of Edmund Burke’s famous statement: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This was certainly the case in Rwanda.

**From the review of the award winning documentary film, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire.

The Elizabeth Code...

I recently watched the film, Elizabeth: The Golden Age. It was a dazzling film, filled with remarkable costumes, breath-taking sets, great performances and inspiring music—in other words, not a bad film. However, I couldn’t help but be disturbed by the underlying message of the film-makers. The movie was used as a political soapbox and historical allegory to attack recent British and American foreign policy. Am I reading into things too much? Am I cursed with an over-analytical “English major” mind? Let me tell you what I saw and you can be the judge…

All of the points below are “sort of” true… a dash of historical truth mixed a great deal of “updating”…

1) Elizabeth was presented as a promoter of 21st century tolerance. She accepts everyone, even the dread pirate Raleigh. She was also portrayed as a “modern”—i.e., subtlety cynical about traditions and religion.
2) Mary, Queen of Scots, on the other hand, was intolerant, power hungry and manipulative… and a devote Catholic.
3) Philip of Spain was also intolerant and portrayed as a religious nut who declares Roman Catholic “jihad” on England.
4) If Elizabeth had only been tolerant of those who differed with her, then there would be peace. Unfortunately, she executed Mary, Queen of Scots, for attempting to assassinate her… which ultimately precipitated the Spanish invasion.

The only glitch to this tidy recreation of events is the fact that Elizabeth wasn’t tolerant of the invading Spanish Armada. They had to include that part, though, because of the cool special effects. The role of God in the defeat of the Spanish Armada is also downplayed.

To sum up the hidden meaning... Christians a few centuries ago are just like Muslims terrorists today. Therefore, the US should abandon religious squabbles and be tolerant of different perspectives. Also, if the US would stop declaring revenge war on the Islamic extremists/fanatics, then maybe we could all get along… Lastly, the Spanish Armada can be seen as a metaphor for US military excess, especially in Iraq. They should stop that too.

The moral of the story is that "history repeats itself"---especially when a film-maker re-writes history to prove his point...

It's a Wonderful Life

On Friday I was offered the opportunity to teach Greek drama, Classical mythology and Roman poetry to students in Rome, Greece and Crete. This is a phenomenal opportunity from a career and personal interest perspective. The only catch… it is during the month of July and I would be leaving my family behind.

Recently I blogged about the importance of family. Now I have to choose between my intellectual stand on family and my actual “living out” of my belief. I really want to go… I have a passion for Classical literature and drama. I would be teaching Classical civilization in the greatest classroom imaginable... surrounded by the ancient ruins and artefacts of the Classical world.

I told the Chair of the History Department this morning that I cannot go.

I reasoned from the perspective that---irnonically---I would miss too much if I went to Europe. Some of my colleagues think I am crazy passing up an all-expense-paid trip to Europe, teaching students in the midst of three thousand years of history. I should take advantage of the moment---“carpe diem”---seize the day!

But here is what I would miss if I went: camping with my son at the Pinery; camping with my family at Rock Point; my son’s ninth birthday party; a week visiting my brother and family in North Carolina; a friend’s wedding; family day trips to the beach; family hikes in local conservation; a month reading with my children and waking up in the morning with my wife.

The Latin phrase, “carpe diem” means “seize the day”---make the most out of your time because time is fleeting. “Carpe” was originally a Roman agricultural term, meaning to “pluck” a crop during harvest. I feel I am seizing the day by not leaving my family. Now is the time to be with my daughter and sons and wife. Like a crop at harvest time, these hours and days with my family cannot be reclaimed. No farmer can put off harvest. When harvest time comes, the crop must be "plucked". Likewise, no man can put off the young years of his family. My sons and daughter will eventually grow up and leave home. Now is the time to be with my children, now is the time to visit my brother and my nieces and nephew.

My favourite movie when I was a boy was “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Remember George Bailey’s desire to travel and see the world? Remember how the seemingly mundane things of life held him back? He never made it to Rome or Paris, but he had a wonderful life. It is not just about “duty” to family and friends; it is about living a wonderful life.


The ruins can wait. My family cannot. The ruins will always be there. These precious moments with my children and my wife can never be reclaimed. Carpo diem. I am seizing the day. My life is a wonderful life.