Mosaic Movie Connect Group

CT's Critics Choice Movies of 2011

2012-01-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

"Christianity Today" just released their list of their Critic's Choice Movie Awards for 2011. At the top of their list is Terrence Malick's contemplative film: The Tree of Life. Other films on this top ten list include: Win Win, Drive and their most redeeming movie of the year Of Gods and Men.

Drive -- moral ambiguity and gratuitous violence

2012-01-26T20:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Nicolas Refn, 2011. (R)

The opening scene is a car chase through the dark streets of Los Angeles. The Driver (Ryan Gosling, Crazy, Stupid Love) tells the two robbers, before letting them out for the robbery, “If I drive for you, you give me a time and a place. I give you a five-minute window, anything happens in that five minutes and I’m yours no matter what. I don’t sit in while you’re running it down. I don’t carry a gun. . . . I drive.” Offering no margin for error, Driver has his own set of morals. Yet, as we will explore, one of the themes of Drive is moral ambiguity, and the film itself enters into the realm of genre ambiguity.

Marketed as a thriller, Drive is modern film noir with themes of crime doesn’t pay and bad choice eventually catch up with you. But the unnamed protagonist, only referred to as Driver or Kid throughout, is a sweet-avenger with a gentle voice, not a typical macho noir hero. Yet, it resembles just as much a modern Western, bringing to mind Clint Eastwood’s "Man with No Name" trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars, etc). Like Eastwood’s character in those spaghetti westerns Driver is the strong, silent type, a solitary figure with a sardonic smile. Alienated from others, he has no emotional links, he owns little and keeps to himself.

Drive gives us no backstory on Driver or any of the characters in the film. There is only present, no past and ultimately no future. Driver never focuses on the past, never analyzes his actions in the present. It is almost symptomatic of our current age where living for the now is the epitome. Nothing else matters.

The initial chase puts Driver’s skills on display: his oneness with his car, his acute sense of the presence of the police, and his absolute calmness in the presence of danger. Throughout he refuses conversation. He has one focus: the job. Later we learn that Driver works by day as a mechanic in a garage for Shannon (Bryan Cranston) who also gets him gigs as a Hollywood stunt driver. Shannon also gets him the gigs as a getaway driver by night, for crooks he does not know and never meets again. We never know why he lives this life of crime; he does not need the money, as he seems to have littler consumerist tendencies and no obvious future planning.

When Driver runs into Irene (Carey Mulligan, An Education) and her young son, his emotional hardness is pierced and his barriers fall. With her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), in prison, she needs help. As he comes to her aid as a savior, he begins an unexpected relationship. Long quiet drives deepen their platonic friendship. Her innocence contrasts with his brokenness and may provide the reason why he protects her in a messianic fashion.

Meanwhile, Shannon gets into a shady relationship with two mobsters played by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman. They agree to fund his idea of buying a stock-car that Driver will race. But getting into bed with the devil is a bad idea, and will come back to haunt a person.

When Standard gets out of prison, thugs come looking for him: he owes cash, lots of cash. Seeking to help Irene, Driver offers to do one last job with Standard, to get him out from under his debt. Of course, this job goes wrong, horribly wrong, and Driver finds himself with a duffel bagful of cash being hunted by hit men.

Having just spent a weekend in a coaching class, I was struck by one scene. When Driver finds Standard beaten and bloody, he stands facing him and asks him what happened. He listens quietly. When Standard finishes his explanation, Driver pauses to think, then asks, “So, what are you going to do about it?” Such attentive listening and focused questioning, helping the person to look inside for answers to his own problems is the definition of co-active coaching. It’s a great summation.

The first act is actually slow and quiet. Driver and Irene make little conversation, they mostly communicate through gazing at each other. With a synth-laden soundtrack, and a hot pink font for the credit’s typography, the film is sleek and stylish, oozing visual flair. And then with a suddenness that shocks, Nicolas Refn brings on the violence. From the first shotgun killing to the fork in the eye, the violence is gory and over-the-top, brutal and bloody. With each new killing, Refn ups the stakes and amplifies the graphic nature of the bloody scene. And it is unnecessary. Indeed, its gratuitous nature becomes an affront to the audience.

This theme of violence highlights the cyclical nature of violence. Greg Garrett, professor of English and author of The Gospel According to Hollywood (a book on film and culture), comments, in his blog review on Drive, on the impact of violence:

In pop culture, our Christ figures - whether they are Neo in The Matrix or The Preacher in Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider - employ violence to save innocents, and that understanding informs what we do as a nation. Executing criminals, torturing terrorists, bombing opposing nations-we are believers that violence can solve problems, perhaps because, at least in the short run, it does.

But violence has its costs. When we employ violence against others it results in more violence, usually of a greater kind, as Refn shows. Garrett goes on to say,

If there is a positive Jesus-y message from the film, it clearly cannot be about the efficacy of violence. As Martin Luther King preached in Strength to Love, ‘Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.’ A stage littered with bodies is always the sign that we are watching a tragedy.

Driver wears an iconic satin bomber jacket thoughout, one that bears a scorpion on the back. This jacket provides a two-fold metaphor. What started as white and shiny becomes splattered with blood after one killing. Metaphorically, the cost of violence is displayed on his back. Figuratively, this points us back to the words of Isaiah (1:18): ““Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.” We all wear dirty robes, and we cannot clean them ourselves. Driver does not clean his jacket once stained. Yet there is one in life whose clothing is unstained. The Old Testament prophet Daniel pointed out, “As I looked, ‘thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow’ .” (Dan. 7:9) This one is Jesus. He is a true Messiah, and he offers to cleanse us. Another prophet beautifully painted this picture, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.” (Zech. 3:4)

The second metaphor stems from a story Driver relates in a phone conversation referring to “the scorpion and the toad” tale. In the story, the toad carries the scorpion across the river. But the scorpion stings the toad and both drown. When asked why by the toad, the scorpion replied that “it’s my nature”. Driver is the scorpion. It is his nature to kill. It is his nature to be alone, disengaged. But in reality, our true nature is found only in Jesus, where he gives us a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17), one that resembles what God originally intended for humanity from the beginning. Our broken and corrupt nature we are born with pulls us to sin and self, leading to crime. But unlike the scorpion or Driver, we can change; we can be changed if we turn to Jesus.

This brings us back to the theme of moral ambiguity and Driver’s initial quotation. Driver had his own moral code. He used it to control, himself and others. He left no margin for error. He carried no guns and was determined not to shoot anyone. These morals seemed upright, until you see that they don’t prevent him from carrying out crime. Moreover, he is willing to stomp or stab someone to death but won’t shoot them. There is a paradox; there is ambiguity. His morals were relative, self-determined, baseless. A proverb says, “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death” (Prov. 14:12). Man-made morals are like this. They seem right, but they are ultimately wrong, deadly wrong. In contrast, moral perspicuity comes from centering a life on God, following Jesus. He laid out his ethic in the classic Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-8), but it can be summarized succinctly, as he does in his upper room discourse (Jn. 13-17): “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (Jn. 13:34).

Drive is sleek yet superficial. Ultimately, it is as empty as its protagonist. It spills gallons of blood leaving a dozen or so dead bodies on its path, but offers no solutions, just the reminder of the graphic cost of violence. It’s not for the faint of heart.

Copyright©2012, Martin Baggs

CT's Top 10 Most Redeeming Movies of 2011

2012-01-24T07:00:00.000-08:00

"Christianity Today" just released their list of "The 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2011." At the top of their list is a contemplative yet moving French film set in a monastery: Of Gods and Men. It's worth checking out these. Their "Critic's Choice Films" follow later this week.

Attack the Block -- hoods, heroes and neighbors

2012-01-22T13:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Joe Cornish, 2011. (R)

British cinema saw the emergence of B-movie horror films with the Hammer studio in the 1950s. Here, writer-director Cornish’s debut film echoes that genre. The low-budget Attack on the Block has a B-movie horror feel with some very dark British humor thrown in. And the accents are thick and dark, so may be a little difficult for non-Brits.

The movie opens with Sam (Jodie Whittaker), a young nurse, walking home through the streets of inner city South London. Confronted by a gang of young teenage hoodlums, she is mugged at knife-point. Before they can do anything more than steal her purse and ring, a meteor crashes through the roof of the car next to her. But this is no meteor.

Cornish himself was mugged in South London in a similar fashion. Recognizing that his assailants were as scared as he was, he began researching young thugs and was inspired to make this film.

As Sam flees to freedom, the gang, led by Moses (John Boyega) investigate and discover a creature from outer space. Chasing it, Moses kills it and carries the carcass back to his council estate flat. (A council flat is apartment housing in the projects, a low-class ghetto permeated with crime and violence.)

What this bicycle-riding and knife-wielding gang don’t realize is that other monsters will come after them. And they do. Since it is Guy Fawke’s night (England’s answer to Fourth of July), the fireworks are exploding and no one notices these creatures fireballing (and furballing) down ot earth.

After the mugging, Moses’ and Sam cross paths again, first in a police van and then after he rescues her from attack by the creature, his gang find their way to her apartment. She lives in the same project as they do. She is their neighbor. Like it or not, she finds herself cast in with the gang in a live or die effort to defeat this enemy. The hoods have become the heroes in this tale.

Cornish uses mostly unknown actors here. The two leads fare well. Whittaker is credible and does fine work as the nurse. But it is Boyega who stands out. Looking like a young Denzel Washington, he carries himself with an energy and magnetism that draws those around to him. He is a natural and is sure to go on to more and better work. And Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Paul) shows up as a stoner, Ron, who minds the weed room for the rapper-gangster Hi-Hatz, who “owns the block”. Ron is a compilation of the roles Frost has played before, so there is no stretch here, but he imparts much of the humor.

The film explores several themes and offers some social commentary. The first focuses on racial disenfranchisement. The gang is mostly black. Their options are limited and they are drifting into petty crime, with just a step from serious drug activity. Their lack of hope and potential leads them to what they see as their only hope. Hi-Hatz, the gangster, is their hero. Rich and bejeweled, they clamour to be in his gang while the younger kids want to join Moses’ gang. The gang offers them the only way up, if not out. Clearly, there is some racial stereotyping going on but this includes some truth.

A second theme looks at the class barriers and territorialism. The black gang saw Sam as a white nurse, one of the enemy, a class apart. From their perspective, she was fair game. But when they discovered she was one of them, living in the same projects they counted her as one of their own. Moreover, once the monsters attacked the block, everyone living in the apartment building was at risk and class and racial barriers meant less. Species barriers meant more.

Race and class set man against man. Hatred is fueled by these divisions. But they are false barriers. In reality, all men, white or black, rich or poor, have the same fundamental dignity and rights. We are all made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). We are all considered the same when we come to union with Jesus Christ. Paul says in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”.

The final theme is that of courage and heroism. Moses and his friends were viewed as juvenile delinquents by most, including Sam. But given the opportunity, they emerged as heroes, protecting themselves and others, even being willing to sacrifice their lives to save those in their block. We all harbor that potential, to be heroes. We may not get the chance to realize it but it is there. How we react and respond to adversity will prove our mettle. Will we emerge as a hero or a coward?

Despite the simplicity of the aliens and of the plot, Cornish does enough to maintain the suspense and keep us watching. And he reminds us of the need to watch out for our neighbors!

Copyright©2012, Martin Baggs

Jan Movie Group: Drive; Sat 1/21/12, 4:50pm at Academy Theater

2012-01-19T20:30:00.000-08:00

We have firmed up the details for the movie group outing this Saturday. Here they are:

Movie: Drive (R)
Place: Academy Theater (which is at 7818 SE Stark Street)
Date: Saturday 1/21/12
Time: film shows at 4:50pm; meet in lobby at 4:30pm
Coffee and Discussion: Bi-partisan Cafe after the film (which is at 7901 SE Stark Street)

Note there is no parking lot, so you have to find off-street parking, like on SE 78th or SE 77th. However, the cafe is right opposite the theater, so once parked you won't need to move the car.

This low-budget crime thriller, starring Ryan Gosling as a getaway driver, has been listed in numerous top 10 films of 2011 lists, and earned Albert Brooks the Golden Globe for best supporting actor.

Hope to see you on Saturday for this low-budget outing.

Remember: "There are no clean getaways!"

13 Tzameti -- gambling with the poor

2012-01-18T21:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Géla Babluani, 2005. (NR)

Set in France and filmed in cold black and white, 13 Tzameti feels more Eastern European than French. That is perhaps not surprising since it is directed by a Georgian. Not only did he direct this debut feature but he wrote it and cast his brother in the main role. Quite a family project, if not a family-friendly film. And with the cold nihilistic cynical themes, this is certainly not one to watch with the kids.

Tagged as a mystery thriller, this movie breaks neatly into two halves. The first half is a mystery, the second is more suspense. Sebastien (George Babluani) is a poor roofer who lives with his parents. So poor, he carries his ladder and tools around on a bicycle. While working on a job for a customer, he overhears the man say that he has a job that will make him rich if he survives, and that he is waiting for a letter instructing him what to do. When the man dies and the letter surprisingly falls into his possession, Sebastien decides to take the man's place. What follows in the first half of the film is Sebastien obeying oblique insructions from unseen men. He is unwittingly delving into a rich man's game even while the police are following his trail.

When Sebastien arrives at his destination he finally realizes he may have made a mistake. But it is too late to withdraw. He has become one of 13 tzameti. The trailer and even the DVD box gives away the key plot point, and I won't repeat that. But once the mystery is over the second half of the film descends into a game of greed and gambling.

13 Tzameti has good intentions and an interesting premise. Sadly, Babluani does not develop the characters so we cannot connect to them. They are as cold and aloof as the game, and so we find ourselves simply not caring for Sebastien or anyone else for that matter.

When it is all over, the film leaves us not wondering whether Sebastien made the right decisions. We know he did not. Rather, it leaves us pondering the divide between the poor and the rich, and the behaviors that stem from these castes. For the poor, the question arises: what will they do for money? Will they risk life itself for the promise of a payout? Is that a gamble worth taking? Certainly life is more valuable than riches and money. There is the promise of eternity, the life hereafter. We cannot take riches with us. That was the point of one of Jesus' parable of the rich fool (Lk. 12:13-21). Yet, it is true that poverty often spawns the kind of recklessness that thinks more of today's meal than tomorrow's memory.

And then there are the rich. Here the rich men are superior to the tzameti. They are not only greedy for more, gambling with what they do have. Greed is decried in Scripture. "The greedy bring ruin to their households" and "the greedy stir up conflict" says the writer of proverbs (Prov. 15;27, 28:25). Greed was one of the evil thoughts listed by Jesus (Mk. 7:21-22). And the apostle Paul said that the greedy would not inherit the kingdom of Christ (Eph. 5:5).

More than this though, the rich also deny the dignity of the poor, discounting the value of human life. Riches can cause this kind of behavior, encouraging this posture of superiority. But it is unbiblical. All men are created equal, regardless of race or riches (Rom. 10:22). We are equal in sin (Rom 3:23), equal in need of a savior, and equal in the offer of forgiveness from Jesus (Rom. 3:22). Whether we are rich or poor, we would do well to become one of his followers!

Movie Group for Jan: Sat 1/21/12, 5pm; Movie and Theater TBD

2012-01-13T19:36:00.000-08:00

With the Christmas season behind us, we thought we'd go a little lower budget for the first movie group of 2012. We are planning to hit up a second-run theater and catch a first-quality film. Since the theater schedules are not finalized until Tuesday of next week, we will have to be a bit flexible.

So, we have selected a couple of options in theater and in film. We will likely either go to the Academy Theater, at 7818 SE Stark Street, or the Laurelhurst Theater, at 2735 East Burnside Street. It will depend on what movies they offer and at what screen times, but preference is:

Drive (R) starring Ryan Gosling
Midnight in Paris (PG-13) starring Owen Wilson

We are planning to find a screening around 5pm on Saturday 1/21/12 and then stop by a coffee shop close by after the film for some drinks and discussion.

I realize this is pretty loosey-goosey, but I will update this blog the middle of next week. Hopefully, those of you that are interested will pencil in the date and time (1/21/12 at 5pm) and look for the firm blog posting around Wednesday 1/18.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol -- secrets and teams

2012-01-12T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Brad Bird, 2011. (PG-13)

When Ghost Protocol is enacted by the President, all of the IMF (Impossible Mission Force) is disavowed. They have no backup, no communications, no gadgets; they are on their own with just the world to save. It’s another mission impossible!

This one, though, is full of gadgets, a new team, and a new director. It might possibly be the best of the bunch, filled with more action than ever before. It won’t win any Oscars, but it will give thrill-ride junkies the satisfaction of being swept along for two hours at a wicked pace with whiplash action.

The movie opens with an IMF team trying to break into a Russian prison to free Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise). With Jane Carter (Paula Patton) running the op and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg, Hot Fuzz), returning from his cameo in MI3, manning the technical consoles in the spy truck outside, they are prepared to enact Hunt’s rescue. But there is a reason Hunt is in prison, which we find out later, and a reason the IMF want him out now. A crazy European, Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) is planning to launch a nuclear missile from a Russian sub to spark the next stage of human evolution and Hunt needs to stop him.

Hunt’s mission, with his team of Benji, now promoted to field agent, and Carter, is to recover the launch codes for the nuclear sub, thereby stopping Hendricks in his tracks. But it is not as easy as that. To do this, he must break into the Kremlin. Moreover, when he and Benji, on his first mission and nervous as a teen on his first date, make it into the Kremlin, a bomb goes off. The American team is implicated and the President enacts Ghost Protocol. With his mission still in place, Hunt has little time to stop Hendricks.

Another member joins his team: William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker). Apparently an analyst, he bears some hidden secrets and is carrying a bucket-load of shame. Only in the final post-climax concluding scenes do we discover his secret and even Hunt’s secret. Both have been bearing burdens the whole time, and it has impacted them and their relationship.

Secrets that harbor shame and guilt will damage relationships. In this case, we see Hunt and Brandt literally at each other’s throats without knowing why. When we carry such secrets around they become cancers, eating away at our character and sucking away our life. The best resolution is confession. Indeed, Brandt practices this at the end with positive results. Biblically, such advice is paralleled in John’s epistle. When our secrets cover up sin, we are entreated to bring them to God: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9). Such confession combined with repentance (Lk. 24:7) provides purification and reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20). It worked with Brandt and Hunt; it will work with you and God.

Brandt may be an analyst, but once the fighting starts it is clear he knows a thing or two. He has seen field work. It was rumored that he was being lined up to replace Ethan Hunt when Cruise steps down, but these rumors have been disavowed. It is clear that Renner is replacing Matt Damon in the Bourne series. From Ghost Protocol, it seems that Cruise has years ahead of him in the main IMF role, and there is talk of Brad Bird and Tom Cruise preparing for MI5. And we hope this is so.

Indeed Cruise, even at 49, continues to do most of his own stunts. And what stunts they are in Ghost Protocol. The best is probably his attempt to climb the outside of the hotel in Dubai using electronically enhanced adhesive gloves (“blue is glue, red is dead”). Using the Burj Khalifa tower, literally the tallest building in the world, Hunt has to scale a dozen floors even while a sandstorm approaches and his gloves stop working. Then there is a tremendous mano-a-mano fight sequence in an automated car park in Mumbai. He brings new meaning to the term “head-on collision”!

And if this sounds like a James Bond film it should. There are glamorous locales a plenty. But unlike Bond, Hunt works with a team. And this is something director Brad Bird brings to this installment of the IMF series.

This is the first live-action feature film that Bird has helmed. He is better known for animated movies, like The Iron Giant or The Incredibles. Indeed, the latter Pixar film featured super-heroes who had to work together to conquer a master villain. On their own they were inadequate, together they were victorious.

Unlike earlier directors, this teamwork prevails throughout. In MI1, Hunt relied on his technical assistants, including Luther (Ving Rhames, who does have a cameo here), but he resorted to his own efforts at the end. Likewise in MI2, where John Woo brought a martial arts feel to the film but left Hunt to solve his own problems in a duel to the death. JJ Abrams directed MI3 with more of a family feel, Hunt getting married to Julie (Michelle Monaghan, who also has a cameo), but we remember that again Hunt ended up having to defeat the arms dealer without IMF support. Not so here.

At the climax, we find all four IMF team members heavily involved. All are necessary to save the planet. If any one of them fails in their sub-mission the missile will arrive and explode. Hunt is fighting Nyqvist for the launch codes. Carter must seduce an Indian to get access to the satellite. Brandt must reprogram the satellite while being levitated magnetically by Benji via a robot and a metallic undershirt. This is truly teamwork in action, just like in the old TV series. It is tremendously exciting.

It reminds us, too, of the teamwork necessary in the church. Paul uses the analogy of the human body with reference to the spiritual gifts God has distributed within the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12): “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12). He goes on to refer to the foot, the eye, the ear, the hand, and even our private parts. His point, though, is very clear: “The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” (v. 21). All are necessary for the body to function correctly, to operate as designed.

Likewise, God has given various kinds of spiritual gifts to people in the church and these are meant to function together. We are not all apostles, we are not all teachers. We are not all miracle workers. Some are, but most are not. We have other gifts, not necessarily less important, just different. This broad diversity of gifting enables the unity of the church. We should not be caught up with what we are not; rather we should rejoice with the gifts God has given us. And we should use them in the context of the church, to enable it to achieve its mission: to glorify God and to spread the gospel.

We will never be an Ethan Hunt, climbing impossible towers. We are more likely to be a Benji Dunn, cracking nervous jokes as we do something outside of our comfort zone. But we can rely on God to work through us to achieve his impossible mission as we exercise the gifts he has given us through his Spirit, the Holy Ghost. We can be certain that in this mission, he will not enact ghost protocol and disavow us!

Copyright©2012, Martin Baggs

Mission Impossible 3 -- the anti-God weapon

2012-01-09T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: J. J. Abrams, 2006. (PG-13)

This Mission Impossible opens with Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) chained to a chair and facing a man with a gun giving a countdown. Tense, thrilling, we are dropped in the middle of the film before it even starts!

After the opening credits, though, we are back to the present, where Hunt is now a trainer for Impossible Mission Force, living a sedate life in the States, engaged to be married to Julia (Michelle Monaghan, Gone Baby Gone). Ordinary life is interrupted when he gets a call during his engagement party from his boss John Musgrave (Billy Crudup) calling him back into the field. His mission, should he choose to accept it, is to save another IMF field agent who has been captured (Keri Russell). Of course he accepts! What would happen to this franchise if he settled down to married life. It would become a spy sit-com.

The third installment brings a third director to the helm. This time it is Abrams, making his feature film debut. Gone are the over-the-top kung fu sequences. Back are the thrills. The plot is better than the second. Once again we have global backdrops, from Germany to America, Vatican City to Shanghai.

Hunt's diverse team this time includes Luther Stickell again (Ving Rhames) along with newcomers Declan Gormley (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and Zhen Lei (Maggie Q). But these are mostly support since most of the heavy lifting is done by Hunt. He, after all, is the super-spy.

This film has the best cast of the series so far. Alongside the actors listed above, there is also Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix) as the somewhat shady director of the force and Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz) as Benji Dunn, a Bond-esque Q-like character providing comic relief. Best of all is Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) as Owen Davian, the black market arms dealer after "the rabbit's foot". Hoffman portrays an articulate and heartless criminal who is by far the best enemy Hunt has faced. (He is the gunman from the opening scene and who laters tells Hunt, "Who are you? What's you're name? Do you have a wife? A girlfriend? Because if you do, I'm gonna find her. I'm gonna hurt her. I'm gonna make her bleed, and cry, and call out your name. And then I'm gonna find you,and kill you right in front of her.")

What we expect from a Mission Impossible film are superior action sequences, and this one does not disappoint. The acrobatics occur against the backdrop of the Shanghai skyscrapers, with Hunt showing why we should study math and physics: to determine how to swing from one building to the roof of another hundreds of feet above the ground. There is a terrific gun battle set on a long bridge that pits Hunt against drone. And then there is the elevator escape scene where Hunt illustrates the perfect use of "We are Family". But it is family that drives this film, since Hunt has to find the rabbit's foot to save Julia.

Perhaps the best part of the film is seeing one of the IMF masks created before our very eyes. And when Hunt employs this as he prepares to take the place of Davian, we also see how the voice encoders are programmed to work.

We never find out much about the rabbit's foot. Hunt has no idea but Benji tells us: "You see, it was inevitable that a compound would be created which is referred to as the 'Anti-God'. It was like an accelerated mutator or sort of, you know, like a, an unstoppable force of destructive power, that would just lay waste to everything - to buildings and parks and streets and children and ice cream parlors, you know? So whenever I see, like, a rogue organization willing to spend this amount of money on a mystery tech, I always assume... it's the Anti-God. End-of-the-world kinda stuff, you know... But no, I don't have any idea what it is. I was just speculating."

There have been several anti-God weapons: from nuclear bombs to biological viruses. All have the potential to wipe out mankind. But like Benji points out, all point to the end of the world. Yet, when we think of the end of the world we think of Armageddon and that points to the book of Revelation. In this last book of the Bible we find not an "anti-God" weapon but the judgment of God himself. The wrath of God is poured out on the world (Rev. 14-19) that has rejected him and his offer of love and forgiveness. Given the choice between God and the devil, the world has chosen the Great Babylon (Rev. 14:8). There follow seven woes, seven trumpet judgments and seven bowl judgments. Each brings further judgment and devastation on fallen humanity. Each brings us one step closer to the final judgment and the end of the world. Woe to those who remain apart from God at that time. It will be an impossible mission to save them!

Copyright©2012, Martin Baggs

Mission Impossible 2 -- heroes and villains

2012-01-06T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: John Woo, 2000 (PG-13)

For the second installment of Mission Impossible, the producers turned to a new director. Known for his Hong Kong action films, Woo brings his ultra-choreographed set pieces to this thrill pill. And he brings doves and guns galore, two of his directorial trademarks.

Tom Cruise reprises his role as Ethan Hunt, IMF secret agent and all-around super-cool guy. Before he even gets his mission, we see him climbing impossible rock formations alone in the Utah desert. Hanging from the fingertips of one hand hundreds of feet above the rocky floor below, we believe this man can do the impossible. Then he gets his mission: he must find and retrieve something called chimera, selecting two agents and using one civilian. And he's off on a chase that is faster than the first film even while the plot is slimmer and less absorbing.

Working with him is agent Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), returning from the first film, and agent Billy Baird (John Polson). The civilian is super thief Nyah Nordoff-Hall (Thandie Newton), a glamorous gal who soon becomes Hunt's love-interest. But working against him is Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), a former IMF agent turned bad guy.

Despite the first couple of scenes with Nyah, where she attempts a jewel heist amidst a Spanish flamenco dance, and when she races Hunt around twisting mountain passes, she does not get to take part in the action. Indeed, one of the themes of the movie appears anti-feminist. In a discussion with his commander, Ethan points out: "She's got no training for this kind of thing." But Commander Swanbeck (Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs) replies, "What? To go to bed with a man and lie to him? She's a woman - she's got all the training she needs." Later, Sean Ambrose comments about Nyah, "You know women, mate. Like monkeys, they are - won't let go of one branch until they've got hold of the next."

This minimizing of women is anathema to feminists and is contrary to Christian teachings. Women are not innately trained to lie to men. They may do so, but so do men. Indeed, we all lie regardless of gender. The decalogue was aimed at all people, and one of the ten commandments declares: "Do not lie" (Lev. 19:11). Moreover, although they are considered the fairer sex, they are just as capable of learning to fight as men. Women serve in police forces and the military around the world.

Like the first film, Hunt employs masks. Actually there are more masks used here, too much in fact and it even becomes somewhat confusing. The action sequences, though, are more expansive if less believable (if that's possible). Seeing Hunt riding a motorcycle and firing a gun using only his rear-view mirror for aim is over the top. But then so is the motorcycle duel that climaxes the film. This is more kung fu choreography than anything. Hunt employs martial arts in his fights, something he didn't do before.

And of course, what is a Mission Impossible film with dangling acrobatics. Hunt once again finds himself dropped from a cable. This time into a lab to steal the chimera virus.

But back to themes. The opening of the film shows a scientist speaking into a camera: "Every search for a hero must begin with something which every hero requires, a villain." Sean Ambrose may be the human villain, but chimera is the real one. Indeed, Ambrose makes a less than compelling villain. He has little that is memorable. Unlike the first film, where the villain is mysterious, Amrbose is a by-the-book nemesis.

The scientist is correct. We cannot understand good unless we contrast it with evil. Good on its own has no context. In Eden, God instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). Obeying offered a theoretical knowledge of evil, but disobeying provided practical experience of good and evil and the introduction of sin into the world (Gen. 3). Like light shining in the midst of darkness, good stands as a clear bastion when set against evil.

More than this though, a hero requires a villain. We have one in real life: Jesus. But we would not know the extent of his heroics or his love without his nemesis: Satan. The beauty of the cross can only be understood when seen as the method of defeating the devil. We look to Jesus Christ, not Ethan Hunt, when we want our true hero.

Mission Impossible -- impossible expected!

2012-01-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Brian De Palma, 1996. (PG-13)

"Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept . . . If you or any member of your team is caught or killed, we will disavow all knowledge of you." For those old enough to remember the terrific television show from the late 1960s, this is how each episode would start. And this is how this first films begins, with Jon Voight as the Impossible Mission Force leader Jim Phelps.

For his mission, Phelps compiles quite a crew: Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise, Top Gun), his wife Clair Phelps (Emmanuelle Beart, Manon of the Spring), Sarah Davies (Kristin Scott Thomas, The English Patient), and Jack Harmon (Emilio Estevez, uncredited). The mission involves crashing an official dinner party in Prague and capturing a stolen NOC list, a list of non-official covers for American spies, which would lead to extensive capture and execution of these agents. But things go horribly wrong and Hunt finds himself on the run from his own agency, looking for the NOC list. To do this, he has to recruit former agents Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), a computer specialist, and Franz Krieger (Jean Reno, The Professional).

Unlike the TV show, the film is expansive like a Bond movie. Travelling from Prague to Virginia to London, Hunt is a man on a mission, not only to save himself, but to find the traitor. But like the show, there are masks and gadgets galore.

The plot is absorbing with a clever storyline, excellent explosions, and fabulous set-pieces. Several stand-out. The climax on the chunnel train with a helicopter chase thrills even while it defies logic. The best, though, is the break-in to CIA HQ at Langley, where Hunt dangles inches from the pressure-sensitive floor while trying to hack the hacker-proof computer. This still has become the defining image of the MI films, being repeated in one way or another in the subsequent sequels.

Zero body count" is the tone of this installment of Mission Impossible. Ethan Hunt tells this to Krieger as the Frenchman is about to slit a good guy's throat. The erstwhile American spy chooses to keep a clean body count, but later "matures" and gets in touch with his killer nature. But that is for the first sequel.

When it comes down to it, this thriller is terrific fun but theologically forsaken. Yet consider the tagline: "Expect the Impossible". In the film, Hunt faces formidable obstacles and tasks, all "impossible" on the face of it. But we expect him to overcome and to do the impossible. In real life this seems incredible. Much is impossible for man. But nothing is impossible for God. In Luke 18:27, Jesus said “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” He can do anything and everything (except what is logically impossible, such as make a round square). He is the one who can walk through locked doors (Jn. 20:19), turn enemies into friends (Acts 9), and defeat death itself (Rev. 20:14). The next time you face the impossible, call on Jesus!

The Skin I Live In (La piel que habito) -- perception and identity

2011-12-31T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Pedro Almodóvar, 2011. (R)

Almodovar’s latest film reunites him with star Antonio Banderas (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). Twenty-three years on, Banderas still fills the screen with his handsome visage and physique. Unlike that earlier screwball comedy, this film is serious, deadly serious. This is a suspense drama, with rape and suicide as key plot points. Indeed, it is reminiscent of a somewhat perverted, sexualized Hitchcock film.

The film opens with a quiet and serene scene of a woman, Vera (Elena Anaya), in a leotard-like bodysuit performing yoga moves in a large studio apartment. She uses an intercom to request supplies from a maid, Marilia (Marisa Paredes, All About My Mother), living below. All seems calm and well. But we don’t know the whole story.

Almodovar uses this first scene to communicate the point that first impressions can be deceiving. We perceive reality but often see things only skin-deep. And these first impressions cause us to jump to conclusions. We prejudice our understanding in this way. And then having formed these judgments, we interpret correctly or incorrectly the ongoing story of reality through this grid. As the film continues we see the curtain pulled back on Vera and realize our first impressions were hugely wrong.

As we move on, we meet Dr. Robert Ledgard (Banderas), a scientist whose wife died in the flames of car crash. Grief-stricken, he has dedicated his life to perfecting a synthetic skin, one that can withstand burns as well as cuts, and shields the lucky person from most pain. He works tirelessly in a private laboratory beneath his large secluded home. But are his motives as altruistic as they seem? The scientific community begins to question the bioethics underlying his discoveries when he shares them to a private audience.

To understand Ledgard’s motives, Almodovar takes us back 6 years. The slowly developing movement of the film takes us back not to the crash, but to its aftermath and its effects on his daughter. And like a true master, Almodovar takes us to the abyss, and then makes us look over the edge, throwing a twist so large it knocks us over the edge. Some may see it coming, and the clues are all there, but once revealed it casts everything we have seen before in a new and striking light.

A key theme emerges: identity. Are we defined by the skin we live in? If so, if we change that skin, do we change our fundamental nature and identity? Ledgard’s mad scientist experiments would have us answer affirmative to both questions. The new skin resists flame and that new skin on Vera, his flawless patient, provides her a new identity. Her identity is skin-deep.

Is this true? Is our identity only as deep as the cells in our skin, superficial? Surely not. Even if we change our skin, through grafts, we remain the same person. If we undergo surgery to change our appearance, we retain our DNA, we maintain our nature. We may even change our name, seeking to change our identity, but this does nothing to modify our character. Our innate personhood, our inherent nature is stable.

Identity is rooted in relationship, to ourself, our parents, our family, and our God. We know who we are even if we change our face, our name, our behavior. Much of our identity stems from our parents and familial upbringing. Even our name usually comes from there. But our fundamental identity, our uniqueness, comes from the God who formed us. Made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), we are marred by sin (Gen. 3). Yet when we come to follow the Lord Jesus we find ourselves adopted back into the family of God; we are called “children of God” (Jn. 1:12). This is at the very heart of our identity. When we come to the heavenly city upon exiting this life, we will find entry dependent on identity and relationship. If we are a child of God through relationship to Jesus Christ, we will be offered access. If we not, we will be shut out.

Once the twist is shown and the cat is out of the bag, a final theme emerges: vengeance. To be more exact, Almodovar forces us to consider the lesson that vengeance begets vengeance. Violence early in the film lays a path for violence throughout culminating at the climax.

The only true solution to vengeance is to absorb the earlier violence rather than repay it. Yet this carries a heavy cost: the cost of forgiveness. When we do not forgive we set ourselves up for bitterness or vengeance. The price of the former is a twisted and loveless life, while the price of the latter is a violent and cruel life. Neither offers hope. Jesus showed us the way. He offers us forgiveness for our sins through his blood shed on the cross (Eph. 1:7). Yet, if we accept his forgiveness to us, we are indebted in turn to offer forgiveness to others (Lk. 17:4). Jesus taught us to pray this way in the Lord’s Prayer, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12).

Almodovar is no Christian and his answer is humanistic. His answers to the themes are skin-deep. But this film is a superb story, cleverly told, that allows him, and us, to reflect on these themes. It is a rare movie of philosophical and artistic depth. But for the more conservative be warned: The Skin I Live In depicts sex and violence that is more than skin-deep.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Crazy, Stupid, Love -- marriage vs one-night stands

2011-12-27T16:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Glenn Ficarra & John Requa, 2011. (PG-13)

Crazy, Stupid Love is a rom-com, but one with a difference. The couple starts off together, having been married 25 years. The opening scene shows a crowded restaurant, the camera focusing on the feet under tables. Most couples are playing footsie, all except one. The feet of Cal (Steve Carrell, Date Night) and Emily (Julianne Moore, The Kids are All Right) Weaver stay on their own sides of the table. They are discussing what they want: “How about we say what we want on three? One, two, three.” In unison, they declare “Creme Brulee” (Cal) and “I want a divorce” (Emily). The room falls silent, Cal’s mouth drops. He is stunned. After 25 years and children at home, he had no idea. What a way to end a dinner, or start a movie.

Cal takes it like a man. At least, he does not argue or plead with Emily. He does not want hear her talk about the reasons why. Instead, he placidly moves out of the comfortable family home into a small apartment. He believed Emily was his soul mate; now he is not so sure.

Soul-mate is a theme that weaves throughout the movie, from multiple characters cross-generationally. Is there a true concept of a soul-mate? And if so, is there just one? Or can there be multiple soul-mates for a person? The soul-mate is usually thought to be the person with whom we have a deep personal affinity, one with whom we can share the deepest parts of our soul. It speaks to the deepest levels of intimacy. Certainly, if we go that deep, becoming totally exposed and vulnerable we will not likely do it with multiple people.

Biblically, the concept can be found as early as the second chapter of Genesis. When God made Adam he was lonely and God said, ““It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:18). To rectify the situation, God formed Eve. She was more than just a helper, she was his life-partner, his soul-mate. In the New Testament the idea of a life-long union of man and woman in marriage connotes a soul-mate relationship (Eph. 5:25-31). Many marriages do not evolve to this level of intimacy, but I believe it is the goal of a healthy marriage. Obviously, if a married person develops this level of intimacy with someone other than their spouse, it will damage if not destroy the marriage.

But Cal’s marriage is in deep trouble. His soul-mate is finding satisfaction and intimacy elsewhere. As he mopes to himself in a chic pick-up bar, hunky, packed-abs bachelor Jacob (Ryan Gosling) hears him and makes him an offer he cannot refuse: “I’m going to help you rediscover your manhood.” He offers no real reason why, but he plans a total makeover. And he teaches him how to be like him, a player who picks women up for sex. One-night-stands are the name of his game.

Along the way, several other characters emerge. Robbie Weaver (Jonah Bobo) is Cal’s 13 year-old son who thinks he has found his own soul-mate, and alternates between encouraging and chastising his dad. Marisa Tomei (The Ides of March) is funny and fierce as a recovering alcoholic who Cal chooses for his first post-Emily conquest. Emma Stone plays Hannah, a young lawyer who at first refuses Jacob’s advances but later aggressively pursues him. Kevin Bacon is sleazy as the home-breaker who wants to weasel into Emily’s life. And John Carroll Lynch plays a friend who has to choose between Cal and Emily, and then is over-ridden by his wife! All in all, these are solid characters with believable flaws.

The film, though, belongs to Carell and Gosling. Their interplay works well and both characters grow through the course of the film. As Jacob molds Cal into his image, Jacob discovers Hannah is his soul-mate, and he in turn becomes more like the early Cal. Which is better? Which is right? The contrast is between love and sex, between marriage and one-night stands. Cal had love and lost it. He moved to casual sex, but found himself unsatisfied and pining for his real love, his soul-mate.

The Bible offers clear advice here. Sex is a God-given gift to be enjoyed in the context of marriage: “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” (Heb. 13:4) The one-flesh union is designed to be between husband and wife. As Paul warned the church at Corinth, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). One-night stands offer instant gratification, but at a price. We are prostituting ourselves and committing adultery or fornication. Such sin harms both man and woman involved. There is no commitment, only sex. There is no love, only lust. Such a union does not deepen intimacy and point to a soul-mate. Instead, it leads to shame and guilt.

As the movie progresses, the directors pull out two key plot twists that are not obvious. Both seem to come from left field but work well to give the movie a complete, almost circular feel. The ending may be predictable, but that is to be expected in the rom-com genre. The journey itself is fun and somewhat unpredictable.

In the end, Crazy Stupid Love does not sugar coat love and marriage. It is work. It will not magically solve all relational problems and make us happy. But the effort is usually worthwhile. The payout is intimacy; the result is a soul-mate there for the long-haul. Don’t settle for casual sex; focus on crazy love. If you have not found your soul-mate, keep searching prayerfully. And when you find him or her, commit to lifelong marriage with a goal of growing in intimacy every single day. That is a worthy goal!

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

The Descendants -- living with dignity, dealing with death

2011-12-20T19:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Alexander Payne, 2011. (R)

Life comes at you fast. It’s often brimful of troubles and problems that we don’t see coming. Such is Matt King’s life in Alexander Payne’s independent film. He has all kinds of problems, some of which he isn’t even aware of.

The film opens with a short shot of Matt’s wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) water-skiing in the beautiful Hawaiian waters. This is the only time we see her awake. A boating accident leaves her comatose on life support in a hospital room. Throughout the rest of the film she remains in this coma, though she shares scenes with all the main characters.

Matt (George Clooney, The Good German) is a lawyer and land baron. He and his extended list of cousins (including one played by Beau Bridges) own a large parcel of undeveloped land on Kauai. As sole trustee, Matt has the responsibility of deciding how this land will be sold, and the numerous cousins are forming groups lobbying for particular buyers.

Against this backdrop, Matt has to pull himself away from his work to deal with life. In particular, with Elizabeth comatose he has to deal with his two girls: grade-school age Scottie (Amara Miller) and high schooler Alexandria (Shailene Woodley). As Matt says in voice-over early, “I’m the back-up parent, the understudy.” He knows little about parenting. Good grief, he knows little about his girls! When he flies to the main island to retrieve Alex late at night, he finds her drunk and verbally abusive. Their relationship is fractured at best. As if this is not enough, back home Alexandria does not want to deal with the pre-grieving over her mom and reveals a huge surprise to Matt: Elizabeth was having an affair. And Matt did not even suspect.

George Clooney is having a great year. He wrote, directed and starred in the political thriller The Ides of March, which has garnered him Golden Globe nominations for writing and directing, and also landed co-star Ryan Gosling an acting nomination. Here, he underplays Matt, showing him as lost but thoughtfully responsive to all the situations he finds himself in. He so submerges himself that we forget this is the charismatic actor that women fawn over. He has been nominated for a Golden Globe for his acting, and he is sure to earn at least an Oscar nomination for this.

The acting, surprisingly though, is dominated by newcomer Shailene Woodley. She stands up to Clooney and plays alongside him like a veteran three times her age. She conveys the emotions of anger, shock, grief and more with authenticity that belies her age. She, too, should be honored with award nominations this season.

And there is Hawaii. It is almost a character itself in this story. Eschewing the typical tropical shots of the island, Payne shows more of the natural beauty of the undeveloped land. And the customs of the islands is weaved throughout the storyline, from music to mantel photos.

The main story, like most of Payne’s movies (including the superb Sideways), focuses on relationships. Matt is trying to find himself. He has buried and busied himself in his work, and now he has lost his wife and kids, and isn't sure about himself. His is a journey of self-discovery. Alex is struggling to find her place in the family and ultimately to help her dad on this journey. Bringing along her friend Sid (Nick Krause), who is the comic relief, she (and Sid) sometimes function almost as Matt’s parents.

Of course, we realize that relationships are vital to life. We are designed to live in community; even from the beginning God said “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). When we ignore our relationships, they wither and die. Sometimes, it is only when we are at risk of losing these that we suddenly realize our predicament. Better to nurture those that are important so we can grow closer, rather than further apart.

Matt genuinely wants to work to get closer to his girls, and despite his anger, still loves his wife. Unlike many films that move the plot forward quickly, Payne is content to allow Matt to think and reflect. In doing so, he often chooses the unexpected path. Each time he seems to want to respond with dignity and grace, though he is not expressing a faith.

One key scene has his father-in-law in the hospital room with Matt and the girls. When he comments how faithful Elizabeth was and then harangues Matt, we know the truth and expect Matt to rebut him. Instead, Matt ponders, and we can almost see his brain working. And then he responds with grace, so as not to destroy the grieving father’s last memories of his daughter.

Like Matt, we need to avoid reacting to life and respond thoughtfully and prayerfully. Grace is the key. The writer of proverbs said, “One who loves a pure heart and who speaks with grace will have the king for a friend” (Prov. 22:11). The apostle Paul put it this way, “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Col. 4:6).

The Descendants has received much hype and praise and I found myself a little underwhelmed. The comic moments seen in the trailer are fewer than expected, and the film is quite sad overall. Yet, there is a magic within this melancholy. It is a rare film that lets us see a man dealing with betrayal and death with such dignity, trying to do the right thing by his daughters. He even tries to do the right thing with the land deal.

The movie ends with a shot of a family watching a movie. Ordinary and mundane, this is the destination of the journey. Relationships restored, healing underway. Even in the midst of death, life can go on if we allow grace to suffuse.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Repo Men -- employment, identity and medical responsibility

2011-12-16T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Miguel Sapochnik, 2010. (R)

“My job is simple. Can't pay for the car, the bank takes it back. Can’t pay for your house, the bank takes it back. Can’t pay for your liver, well that’s where I come in.” Remy (Jude Law, Sherlock Holmes), the protagonist, narrates this voice-over at the start of the film. He is one of the repo men.

Set in a bleak future where technology has produced numerous artiforgs, artificial organs to replace those in the body that are worn out or damaged. But control and sale of these artiforgs belongs to a company known only as “The Union” that seems to be above the law. The sale of organs to needy recipients is smooth and sleek, orchestrated by the morally defunct Frank (Live Schreiber, The Manchurian Candidate). But when the payments stop because the recipient can no longer afford it, they are given only a 90-day grace period before the repo men are sent to retrieve the artiforg, regardless of cost to the current user.

The opening scene sets the tone, as we see Remy repossess a liver from an unhappy man. Gory and shocking, Remy dons gloves and his iPod to jam out while he jimmies out the liver, leaving the unconscious man to twitch and die on the floor. Life has its price, and this man could not make the payment.

One of the themes revolves around the job. Remy’s partner Jake (Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland) quips repeatedly, “A job is a job.” But later, after Remy’s eyes are opened, he understands more and comments, “At the end, a job is not just a job, it is who you are, and if you wanna change who you are, you have to change what you do.”

Repo Men posits, therefore, that identity is wrapped up in employment. You are what you do. Is this true? Does our job define us? We often describe ourselves by our jobs. When asked, “Who are you?” we respond with, “I am a doctor” or an engineer or manager or whatever. But identity is never defined in this way in the Bible. We are so much more than what we do. Our job will likely change over time, through our careers, but we remain the same person. If our job defined us, then we would be lacking if we were laid off or fired, as Remy finds out.

We are defined instead by our nature and by our relationships. Humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), uniquely endowed with the immaterial element of soul/spirit that forms personality. And our identity is further refined by our relationships, with each other and with God. Our foremost and most vital relationship is with God through Jesus Christ. When we discover this through faith, we find we are brought into his wonderful family, becoming children of God (Jn. 1:12).

Frank spells out the financial balance sheet to Remy and Jake. The Union does not want to sell artiforgs to people who can pay outright. Rather, they want to sell to those who can only barely afford them, paying the 20% interest and then repossessing when they default on the payments. In that case, they can reuse or resell these organs to new Johns and make more money. They are loan sharks of a sort, preying on the helpless.

Such usury is unjust, an example of social injustice that is prevalent today. God spoke about this through Moses in the Old Testament: ““If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest” (Exod. 22:25). Although not espousing socialism or even communism, this is a far cry from the heartless capitalism that looks to profit from other’s pain.

Remy’s job drives his wife away, and she takes his son with her. When his last job backfires literally, Remy finds himself in a hospital bed with a new artiforg heart. He is now in debt to the company, like the poor victims he chased and killed. With a new heart, he discovers a truth about these victims: they all had names and were human! This not-so-subtle plot point, turns the movie and now Remy no longer has the heart to do his job. It does not take long before he is delinquent on his bill, and Frank sends repo men after him.

The second half of the film, then, becomes a standard chase movie. Remy teams up with a soulful singer (Alice Braga) who is virtually all artiforg, and together they find themselves on the run from The Union. Eventually, and predictably, Frank sends Jake to hunt and kill his friend.

There are some well-choreographed and quite bloody action sequences but their outcome is never in doubt. But Sapochnik throws a curve ball with a final twist that some might see coming and that echoes other sci-fi movies.

Repo Men takes an intriguing concept and fails to really explore the ethical questions. It uses it as a vehicle for a routine action thriller. But it does leave us asking the question, what is society’s responsibility when it comes to medical attention, especially for replacement of organs? Is it right to leave it to the free-trade economy, such as in the USA, to determine who can and who can’t get a new kidney or artificial knee? In that case, the poor will never be able to afford such health care options. But is it better to resort to a socialist scheme where all have the same level of treatment options available, such as in Europe? In some of those countries, citizens have taken out private insurance to get their replacement organs because the national health system was taking too long. Once again, those who could afford it are able to gain, those that can’t have to wait and maybe die before getting their chance.

Ultimately, Repo Men fails to provide answers. But then, the questions are too complex and political for any easy answers. Raising the question may be enough for now. If you leave this movie thinking about such questions rather than about the gore-fest, it would have been worthwhile.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Contagion -- disinformation and disinfection

2011-12-13T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Steven Soderbergh, 2011. (PG-13)

Soderbergh knows how to make a slick movie. He has all aspects of the craft down pat. And he knows how to attract an A-list cast, as is evident here, with more Oscar-winners or nominees than we can name (at least four and four). But he has perhaps too many characters in this ensemble cast and struggles a little to juggle multiple intersecting stories. More on that to come.

The film opens on day 2 of the outbreak. There is no introduction. We are dropped into the story in progress. Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) is waiting in Chicago airport for her flight home. As she coughs, the camera tracks what she touches: her phone, her glass, her credit card, her face. . . From here, Soderbergh takes us on a cross-continental montage showing others who have similar symptoms in London, Hong Kong, Tokyo and China. The intent is clear: some kind of viral disease is travelling around the world.

When Beth arrives home to husband Mitch (Matt Damon) and son, her fever increases, her seizures start, and before 10 minutes are up, she is dead. So is her son. Only Mitch survives. And the epidemic is on!

Members of the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and the World Health Organization are called in, to respectively search for a vaccine and for the origin of the outbreak. This brings in more characters, doctors mostly. Dr Cheever (Laurence Fishburne, The Matrix) sends Dr Mears (Kate Winslet, The Reader) to Wisconsin to investigate Emhoff’s death, while working with Dr Hextall (Jennifer Ehle) on understanding the novel strain of the virus in Atlanta. Meanwhile, Dr Orantes (Marion Cotillard, Inception) from WHO is sent to Hong Kong to pinpoint the location of the index patient. And then there’s Dr Sussman (Elliot Gould), working in a less secure lab in San Francisco. This is a global disaster and requires global participation.

Indeed, working together is the only way the world might survive. And doctors are the heroes here. Whether they are working with big pharmaceutical companies or not, their intentions are true. They want to heal the sick and prevent further deaths. Putting themselves in the face of danger, one key character dies and another chooses self-sacrifice. They are like the great physician, Jesus (Mk. 2:17), who came to heal the sick and sinful, offering himself on the cross.

The strangest character is Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law, Repo Men), a blogger columnist who exposes the truth in his campaign against big business and government control. He is the first to catch onto the enormity of this outbreak. But when he tries to sell this to a legitimate newspaper, he is ignored. Stalking Dr Sussman, he is put in his place with the best line in the film: “Blogging is not writing. It’s just graffiti with punctuation.”

Point taken! True journalists sit behind desks and work for print media. But as a blogger, I resent and ultimately reject this. The internet has leveled the playing field, allowing anyone with a computer or tablet to express his or her thoughts. Certainly that does not equate to journalistic competency, but it enables ideas, if not truths, to be shared. We do need to check our sources and facts more carefully, in this day and age, but this is a small price to pay for the equal access. And I get to write my movie reviews that are read worldwide, when a decade ago that would have been unthinkable and impossible.

But Krumwiede’s blogging has a dark underbelly. While the epidemiologists are trying to keep things under wraps to quell any fear, Krumweide’s columns are exacerbating panic and spreading misinformation. He has a reason: he wants to make money by offering a solution that he tests on himself.

Here is another theme of the film: opportunism vs exploitation. Is Krumwiede being opportunistic? Or is he exploiting a bad situation and making it worse? The former is laudable and sometimes helpful. The latter is low and horrifying. Proverbs tells us, “Do not exploit the poor because they are poor” (Prov. 22:22) but in this case it extends beyond the poor. This kind of exploitation hurts everyone, since all are impacted by a contagious disease of this magnitude. Masquerading as an agent of truth, Krumwiede is nothing more than another liar, a deceiver, reminiscent of Lucifer, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor. 4:4). Krumweide’s words blinded the minds of many.

One problem with Contagion is the vastness of the scope and of the ensemble cast. Some of the stars die quickly, others live but are forgotten in the story for long periods. It is hard to keep the various storylines in mind. And several characters, like the one John Hawkes (Winter’s Bone) plays, seem unnecessary. One wonders why Soderbergh didn’t trim these and leave them on the cutting room floor.

What Contagion does well is show the effects such an outbreak might have on society. As information slowly seeps out of official sources, or disinformation rushes out of the blogosphere, people start to understand they are at risk. Panic causes society as we know it to break down. Infrastructure collapses. Looting occurs, food runs out, cities are quarantined, martial law is enforced. When Mitch Emhoff sees neighbors burglarized and possibly shot, his 911 call cannot go through. A virus so small we cannot see could cause the destruction of everything in sight.

One point emerges clean and clear: we should be more careful with what we handle. Whether it is true that we touch our faces three times every minute, we do communicate germs and viruses by touch. And we touch a lot of things each day. When we consider that many others have touched these before us, leaving a microscopic trail of possibly lethal germs, we might take more care to wash our hands more often.

They say, “cleanliness is next to godliness,” meaning that keeping clean is second only to worshipping God. In Contagion, keeping clean and separate could keep you alive. Living a life of godliness, as Paul tells us to do in 1 Timothy 2:2, is far better. And doing this through faith in Jesus will guarantee life in the hereafter, even if the virus gets you in this one.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Movie Group for December: The Descendants: Monday 12/12/11 at Regal Fox Downtown (7:05pm)

2011-12-08T20:42:00.000-08:00

For our December movie, we have selected The Descendants, a comedy-drama starring George Clooney about life and connecting with family. It is from director Alexander Payne, who did Sideways. This has received excellent reviews (see the Christianity Today review, which gave it 4 stars out of 4), and has been tagged by many as a possible Oscar-contender.

What: The Decendants (rated R)
Where: Regal Fox Stadium 10 (downtown, parking off-street or in a parking structure)
846 SW Park Ave, Portland, OR 97205
Date: Momday 12/12/11
When: 7:05pm showtime
Meet: at the theater lobby around 6:45pm
Who: movie-lovers from Mosaic Church and friends
Post-move: coffee and chat while we walk around Pioneer Courthouse Square

Since we are all getting into the holiday spirit we thought we'd have some fun by grabbing coffee and checking out the big Christmas Tree in Pioneer Square. We can chat about the film, our thoughts, etc, in pairs or small groups as we walk. What a way to spend a Monday: film, friends, festive fun!

We'd love to see you there. If you are running late, don't worry. Come find a seat in the theater and find us in the lobby after the show. Look for the "Mosaic Faith and Film Connect Group" sign. We'll wait for a few minutes after the film before moving on.

The Good German -- sacrifice, survival and smuggling

2011-12-05T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Steven Soderbergh, 2006. (R)

Moody monochrome movies were a thing of the 40s and 50s. But Steven Soderbergh chose to make this film noir mystery, which is set in Berlin in July 1945, as though it were a creation of that era. With references to Casablanca and an ending that bears striking resemblance to that all-time classic, you might be mistaken for thinking Soderbergh is paying homage to that great. But this is no classic, despite the star-studded cast and Soderbergh’s efforts. It pales into comparison, mostly because the characters don’t grip us like Rick and Ilsa did.

To make it as authentic as possible, the film was shot in black and white with period lenses and incandescent light. Rather than using modern microphones, Soderbergh used booms as they did in those golden years. But to make a movie like the classics requires more than nostalgic technology; it requires a strong script and characters we care about. That is what is missing in this film.

George Clooney (The Ides of March) stars as Captain Jake Geismer, a reporter sent to Berlin to cover the Potsdam conference in which Berlin and Germany will be sliced up by the victorious allies: Britain, America and Russia. A journalist, he is given a captain’s uniform to allow him to navigate the treacherous streets of the city. While the war in Europe is over, it still continued in the Pacific, and echoes of the war were all around in the city of Berlin.

Arriving in Berlin, he is met by Corporal Tully (Tobey Maguire, Brothers), an apparently bushy-tailed and innocent GI driver. Yet, he is master of the black market and uses his driving privileges to smuggle materials into and out of the Russian controlled part of the city. War has corrupted his innocence and allowed him to acquire a taste for money. He is also the current lover for Lena Brandt (Cate Blanchett, Hanna).

Lena is the femme fatale in this modern noir, and embodies the role with a Marlene Dietrich like approach. The black and white photography accentuates the shadowy life she lives. To complicate matters, Lena was Jake’s stringer and lover when he lived in pre-war Berlin. Naturally, tensions arise when Jake discovers this secret of Tully’s.

When an American soldier turns up dead in the Russian zone during the conference, both the Americans and the Russians want the murder to go away, simply disappear, despite the fact that the corpse had a pocketful of cash. Jake is the only one that seems to care, and wants to pursue solving the mystery. The second and third acts tell the story of his unofficial investigation.

The film divides neatly into three acts, each focusing mostly on one of these three main characters. Yet, none mean enough to us to want to walk with Jake. By the time end comes around, the payoff is poor and we don’t really care what happened. But each character offers a perspective on the epoch and some insight into morality.

Lena, the German, highlights the cost of survival in the midst of war. As we learn more and more about her it is clear that she carries secrets. Yet to survive through 6 years of war, she has had to make sacrifices, moral and ethical sacrifices. Living now as a woman of the street, she prostitutes herself to live. When times get tough, what are we willing to sacrifice to survive? Would we sell our belongings? Our homes? Our bodies? Or to turn the question around, what is so sacrosanct that we would not compromise even to survive? Is our faith in God such a commodity? Would we remain pure in spirit? Would we remain pure in body? We never know what we would do to survive until that day arrives, though we might plan and prepare. God certainly wants us to remain faithful to him and to place our trust in him regardless, as those like Dietrich Bonhoeffer did. But he was imprisoned and executed by the Nazis and so did not survive the war.

If Lena was the survivalist, Tully was the smuggler. He may have arrived innocent, but the war changed him just as it changed Lena. It showed him how to amass money and corrupted him. Money is amoral, but “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:10). Tully is a clear example of this truth. Though he says, “the war was the best thing that ever happened to me,” in fact it actually ruined him, causing his degradation and fall.

Then there is Jake, the good American. He is the only American that cares about the murder. But we never fully understand why he cares. He offers little of moral note. And the film is not entitled “The Good American” but The Good German.

So to the good German. Who is the good German? The film seeks to address this, but instead asks a more pertinent question: were there any good Germans during the war? If all Germans knew what was going on, were they all guilty to some degree? If they committed war crimes under orders, were they responsible? Other films, such as The Reader, have addressed questions of culpability for the bad Germans. Those that actually stood up and called Hitler to account faced the same fate as the non-Aryans? Like Bonhoeffer, they were typically jailed or killed.

The good German in this film is no Bonhoeffer. He seems anything but good, and in the end the question of culpability or forgiveness is forgotten in the meanderings of a film noir plot.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Win Win -- mistakes, deception and second chances

2011-11-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Thomas McCarthy, 2011. (R)

Cross coming-of-age with mid-life crisis, throw in sports and you get this comic drama. Never quite fitting into a single genre neatly, it nevertheless hits the high notes of all the above.

Director McCarthy has shown himself to be a promising up-and-comer in his first two films, The Station Agent and The Visitor. Here, producing and directing from his own screenplay, he raises the bar. This indie movie is heart-warming without being melodramatic. Entertaining while communicating themes and morals that align with the Christian faith, this is a win-win movie.

One reason the film is so good is the acting. Paul Giamatti (Sideways, The Ides of March) stars as Mike Flaherty, a down-on-his-luck attorney and family man. Giamatti is the homely everyman that we might find living next-door to us: no airs or good looks, just ordinary humanity. Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) plays his wife, Jackie, a woman struggling to raise her kids in a middle-class home depending on her husband to bring home the bacon. Together they bring a reality to this family. Then there’s Bobby Cannavale (The Station Agent) as Mike’s friend Terry, a man-child whose wife has left him and who seems to have no control over his tongue even if his heart is in the right place. Jeffrey Tambor (The Invention of Lying) is quirky as Mike’s side-kick wrestling coach. But stealing the show is Alex Shaffer as teen-age Kyle. His performance is spot-on; he totally embodies a teen-age boy, speaking in mono-tones and single syllables, he is the heart of the movie and its focus.

As we meet Mike, we discover he is low on clients and working as a high-school wrestling coach to make ends meet. His team has lost all their matches, he is losing business, but as the tag-line says, “In the game of life, you can’t lose ‘em all?” Or can you? He is disheartened, suffering from panic attacks and is perhaps a payday away from losing it all.

When he represents elderly Leo (Burt Young) in court, where Leo is being declared mentally incompetent, an opportunity falls into Mike’s lap. Leo wants to live at home, but the court wants to send him off to a retirement home where he can be cared for by nurses. Instead, Mike volunteers to be Leo’s guardian, thereby allowing him to remain in his own home. Of course, such philanthropism is spurred by the monthly $1500 paycheck that accompanies guardianship. And then Mike carts Leo off to the retirement home anyway!

When Jackie finds out about their new dependent, she questions Mike’s reasons but he keeps the money a secret. But when Leo’s out-of-state grandson Kyle shows up on his doorstep Mike and Jackie have no choice but to take him in. When he turns out to be a star wrestler, Mike’s fortunes seem to be on the rise. Then his junkie mom arrives to claim him . . . or at least to claim the guardianship and the money that goes with it, and things get complicated fast.

Win Win is surprisingly full of redemptive themes: love, forgiveness, humanity. It shows a family under strain and depicts its strengthening to overcome such obstacles. When Mike and Jackie work together they do gain small and bigger victories. The strains of life are normal. We all face them. But it is how we react to them and handle them that cause us to grow in character or not. With Kyle as a catalyst, they have something to rally around.

The real moral dilemma in the film, though, is in the deception that Mike creates and continues to walk in. There are always consequences to such deception. In the film, Mike seems to be serving Leo, sacrificing his own time for a good cause. But his apparent selflessness is in reality selfishness. His lie is eventually discovered. When we lie, and we all do this, we hope to get away with it. But God sees all things. He knows what we do. The writer of Proverbs said, “A false witness will not go unpunished, and whoever pours out lies will not go free” (Prov. 19:5). Lying and dishonesty lead to inevitable doom.

In contrast, when times get tough, honesty is always the best policy. It may cause hardship and may cost us some sacrifice, but such consequences promote right relationship. An unselfish act, even when done for the wrong reasons, can touch multiple lives, changing them for the better, as it did here.

Indeed, one of the messages of Win Win is that everyone makes mistakes. But it is how you deal with them that show who you are. Mike made a huge mistake. Kyle made some mistakes. Each had at least one second chance and chose a path that was bordered with forgiveness, at least in the long run. We make mistakes. When we do, we get to choose: will we cover them up, minimize them, or even blame others? Or will we man up and accept responsibility and take what is coming to us?

When we think of our sin in this context, whether it is lying, cheating, stealing or something even worse, we have the same choice. We can blame someone else, like Adam and Eve did in the Garden (Gen. 3:12-13). Or we can confess it to God and claim the forgiveness that comes from Jesus Christ (1 Jn. 1:9). If we place our faith in him who has paid the price for our sin already, we will find that God himself is ready to give us a second chance. This time, we will have true life in Christ (Jn. 10:10)! This is a win-win situation.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Tower Heist -- deceiver vs servant-leader

2011-11-25T09:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Brett Ratner, 2011. (R)

Occupy Wall Street, even Occupy Portland, has been center stage over the last few weeks. Clearly the idea of the 1% owning so much of the country’s wealth while most are swamped in debt with no job to provide any income, is anathema to many people. It is all those people, except the 1%, who will enjoy this film. It is timely comedy for this era.

Don’t expect too much though, it is full of plot holes large enough to drive a Ferrari through. It is mostly mindless entertainment, a screwball comedy that disengages the mind. Yet a study of the two main characters will bring some payoff from this heist.

Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) lives in a penthouse apartment atop the grandiose apartment building called The Tower in the heart of New York. A suave and sophisticated financier, he is nonetheless a Ponzi schemer in the mold of Bernie Madoff. He lives like a king looking down on the minions whose money has made him a success.

The simple Joes who work at the Tower are unaware that Josh (Ben Stiller), their manager, has invested all their pension money with Shaw, who has promised to triple their portfolios. When Shaw is arrested on securities fraud, all his money is frozen by the FBI, and it is likely that their pensions have vanished with the wind.

Rattner takes the first half hour to build his array of characters. He has some excellent comedy stars, many making comebacks of sorts, to work with. Alongside Stiller, who is excellent marshaling his troops, is Eddie Murphy as Slide, an ex-con thief, Matthew Broderick as Fitzhugh, an evicted tenant, Michael Pena as Enrique, a new employee, Casey Afleck is Charlie, Josh's brother-in-law, and Gabourey Sidibe, as a Jamaican maid who possesses safe-cracking talents. These form the gang who will plan the caper. And there is Tea Leoni, as FBI agent Denham whose sentiments lie with Josh, even though she is sworn to uphold the law. Leoni shows that her comic talents are an underrated strength.

Once it is clear that the hotel employees have lost their pensions, and in some cases their life-savings, the film kicks into gear. When Agent Denham mentions to Josh over drinks that Shaw must have $20M stored secretly somewhere in the apartment, the plot is set. Josh decides to steal this from Shaw to return the pensions to the employees. He is a modern-day Robin Hood of sorts.

Josh is the leader, pulling each player into the gang. Where other caper movies, like the Oceans trio, focus on the capabilities of each of the members, here the gang are all incompetents. Even Slide is no real thief: he steals small satellite dishes from balconies to avoid felony convictions. What is endearing is the loose banter that develops between the gang as they plan the heist. This off-the-wall and tangential dialog is a hoot.

It is interesting to contrast the two main characters. Shaw is smooth and suave and totally heartless. He appears earnest and genuine, caring for those who serve him. But when the chips are down, he makes it clear that there is a gulf a mile-wide between him and the hired help. He cares more for his treasured car, a vintage Ferrari, than for the servants. They can be replaced, the car can’t. Moreover, his merciful offer to Josh turns out to be a mockery. Not only does he want to humiliate Josh, he plans to break his pledge to him and punish him mercilessly.

Shaw is a satanesque figure, a god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4). With so much wealth, he controls much in this world and curries favor with the influencers. People see him as one of the good guys, a winner who has pulled himself up by the bootstraps, a true American hero. We love people like this, because we dream we can be like them. But would we be as heartless? Satan seeks to deceive, as he did from the beginning (Gen. 3:13), and destroy (Jn. 10:10). Would we be like that if we rose to a position like Shaw had? We hope not, but can we be sure? Appearances can be deceiving.

Josh, on the other hand, is a hard-worker, almost a work-aholic, who lives to serve and cares about those under him. He rises early to prepare himself for his work. He sets the bar high and expects his staff to follow his example. He is a little like Jesus, the greatest servant-leader who ever lived. Jesus cared, and cares, about those around him. In fact, he came as a person so that he could save us from our sins. Jesus existed in the trinity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:1) in the highest penthouse ever, overlooking all of creation! He had that position, not by screwing others but by dint of relationship. But he cared more for us than for his position. And so he humbled himself and took on flesh for us (Phil. 2:5-9).

The end, which I won’t reveal, underscores Josh’s commitment to his gang and to his staff and his willingness to serve them. He was not in it for himself, to become rich. He wanted to see justice served. Sometimes we must take justice into our own hands to do this, but when we do we must be ready to count the cost.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Turkey Films

2011-11-24T07:00:00.000-08:00

No, I don't mean films that are real turkeys. I am referring to the game my family plays every Thanksgiving. We substitute the word "turkey" for a word in a movie title and come up with a turkey film. It always brings a laugh as we get into the spirit of the game and the spirit of the holiday.

Here is my list of top ten "turkey films" in ascending order:

10. Turkey Wars
9. Turkey Driver
8. The Dark Turkey
7. Turkeyblanca
6. The Turkeyfather
5. The Turkeys of March
4. Bottle Turkeys
3. Hannah and her Turkeys
2. The Turkey of Oz
1. Gone with the Turkey (or Turkey with the Wind)

Why not give it a shot. Make a turkey of yourself! Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Bridesmaids -- raunchy, riotous and redemption-free

2011-11-23T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Paul Feig, 2011. (R)

No one can mistake Bridesmaids for My Best Friend's Wedding, or even The Father of the Bride, yet they all revolve around an upcoming wedding. All are comedies, but Bridesmaids is raunchy and raw, certainly not for anyone easily offended. Given that this was produced by Judd Apatow (The Hangover), this should not be a surprise. It is like a female version of his over-the-top brom-com movies.

The opening scene sets the tone for the film. Annie (Kristen Wiig, Paul) indulges in lengthy, multiple position sex with her on-again, off-again boyfriend at his apartment. She cannot satisfy him but tries. But afterwards, he simply wants to be friends and she accepts this, though she hates herself for doing so. This is a friendship she does not need.

When Lilian (Maya Rudolph) gets engaged she asks Annie to be her maid of honor alongside several bridesmaids. But Annie's life is collapsing and she has little money to afford the wedding acoutrements and the kind of bachelorette party that Helen (Rose Byrne, 28 Weeks Later), a recent and rich friend and bridesmaid, wants to throw. And the film develops this competition between Annie and Helen for Liliam's friendship. Both want to be her "bff." But who really is? And do they lose their perspective on the wedding in the process?

Byrne and Wiig offer some solid comic acting as feuding bridesmaids. But it may be best remembered as the last movie Jill Claybergh made before her death in 2010. She plays Annie's mom. It's also fun to see Chris O'Dowd (who plays Roy in the British sitcom, "The IT Crowd"). As an Irish State Trooper, he is the love interest that Annie needs, though she can't see it. Here is another inversion on the typical guy-girl rom-com. The good guy is waiting for the bad girl to come to her senses. It is Melissa McCarthy, as another bridesmaid, Megan, who steals the show. She uses her comic timing and improv skills to a tee and makes us wish we could see more of her character.

There are some riotous scenes. One involves Annie and Helen trying to outdo each other's speeches at the engagement party. Another involves food poisoning during the bridesmaid dress fittin. The resulting bodily emissions in a one-stall bathroom with three women trying to relieve themselves is both disgusting and hilarious.

For all this, there is little of redemptive value in Bridesmaids. The closest it comes is underscoring the value of friends. Both Annie and Helen want to be best friends, or maids of honor, for Lilian. Is it for the friendship? Or is it for the spotlight? Regardless, friendships should bring strength and love when family can't. Proverbs has it right: "A friend loves at all times" (Prov. 17:17). Friends add color to our worlds. They are there when we need them. But Proverbs also warns: "The righteous choose their friends carefully" (Prov. 12:26).

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Of Gods and Men (Des hommes et des dieux) -- mission, meditation and martyrdom

2011-11-19T07:00:00.000-08:00

Director: Xavier Beauvois, 2010 (R)

Would we face danger, even death, in service of our God? For most of us, even devout followers of Jesus, this question is academic, one we might debate over coffee. For a group of Trappist monks living in a rural part of Algeria, this was an authentic and concrete question that they faced and had to wrestle with.

The film opens with a quote from Psalm 82:6-7: ““I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.” This underscores the impending doom of the story. But then, the film is based on a true account, and for those who remember the events of 1996 the end is pre-ordained.

Like most French films, the plot is slow. Indeed, the first half hour focuses on the ordinary lives of this group of monks, showing them in their monastery praying, eating, chanting, and in their interactions with the Muslim villagers. They may live simple lives in their Catholic community but many of the villagers are even poorer.

The first section of the film is important to set the context and the tone. These men love God. That is clear from their worship and devotion in the monastery. But they also love their neighbors, even when these neighbors are Muslim. This neighborly love is demonstrated in the free medical clinic they offer, manned by Luc (Michael Lonsdal), the medic, and in the time they spend in the Muslim community with these people. They present a picture of what the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Thess. 2:7-8: “Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, so we cared for you. Because we loved you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well.” Yet their focus is not evangelistic. They are satisfied to coexist with these Muslims. The leader of the monastery, brother Christian (Lambert Wilson) even studies the Koran as a means to understand and love them more deeply.

Once the context is set, writer-director Beauvois introduces the dramatic tension. A fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group murders some foreign workers. This scene is graphic and shocking, but communicates the dangers facing those living in Algeria. The Algerian government offers protection, at first, to the monks, but they want none. Christian points out, “We were called to live here, in this country, with this people, who are also afraid.” So they stand firm in their faith; yet the seed of doubt is sown. The question now faces them: to stay and minister and possibly die, or to retreat and live.

With danger hanging over them, discord grows and even tempers flare. Christian wants to stay but others have differing opinions. “I didn’t come here to commit collective suicide,” says one. Another adds, “I became a monk to live, not to sit back and have my throat slit.”

Of Gods and Men offers a view into the doubt that even deep men of faith face. We would think that such monks would embrace this danger like the apostles, being ready to live or die for the Lord. Yet, they are as human as we are, and they struggle with these fears. One cannot sleep, but lies in his bed undergoing a crisis of faith, praying: “As a kid I dreamed of becoming a missionary. Dying for my faith shouldn’t keep me up at nights.”

But in the midst of all this, the film shows how these monks handle such danger and despair: they go on with their lives, seeking God in the midst of it all. Whether seeking solitude in the fields or by a lake to ponder God’s small voice, or in the collective community of praying and chanting, they look to God to influence their decisions. And hear him they do.

The beauty of the film is in its depiction of these meditations. Beauvois eschews a musical soundtrack in favor of a quietness expected of monks. There is little dialog and virtually no music. Instead, we hear the monks chanting hymns in French and following their rituals of prayer and genuflection. The French actors did their own singing and they are surprisingly good. Olivier Rabourdin, who plays Brother Christophe, spoke about this: “To chant Psalms is to breathe together, to share the Breath of Life.” Isn’t this one aspect of the Word of God that happens as we meditate on it?

When the terrorists visit the monastery the tension increases. And as they later return with a wounded member, the monks demonstrate a Christ-like love. Jesus commanded us: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Lk. 6:27). Knowing they would be serving those who could be their killers, Luc and his friends treat the Muslims as fellow humans who need help. They showed practical love regardless of the cost.

The most powerful scene occurs late in the film when the men have made their decision and are enjoying a supper together. One turns on some music: Swan Lake. As the strains of Tchaikovsky’s famous ballet plays over them, the men enjoy their last supper. Like Christ’s last supper, this one is full of powerful but unspoken emotion. There are no need for words.

Of Gods and Men was France’s official submission to the Academy Awards. Though it never won there, it picked up the Grand Prix prize at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, the second highest award. It seeks not to explain this historical event. Instead it ends abruptly, leaving a profound meditation on missionaries and martyrdom. The tag line declared, “In the face of terror, their greatest weapon was faith.” For them it was. How about for us? Hopefully, we never face this situation, but whatever trials or terrors we face, will we approach them in faith, praying, singing and chanting psalms? If so, we will be victorious whether we live or die.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

November Movie Group: Tower Heist, Sat 11/19/11 at Century 16 Eastport Plaza, 4:45pm

2011-11-15T20:14:00.000-08:00

OK folks, slight change of plan for this Saturday’s movie group. We are moving the location since we can catch a matinee if we go to Century Eastport and save $3.25 per ticket (which is the cost of the latte you’ll want after the show for discussion at Starbucks!).

What: Tower Heist (rated PG-13)
Where: Century 16 Eastport Plaza
(4040 SE 82nd Ave, Portland, OR 97266)
When: 4:45 pm showtime
Date: Saturday 11/19/11
Cost: $7.25 adult (matinee price!)
Meet: theater lobby about 20 minutes before showtime
Who: movie-lovers from Mosaic Church and friends
Discussion: Starbucks Coffee Eastport Plaza
(4328 SE 82nd Ave, Building H, Portland, OR 97266;
corner of SE 82nd and Holgate)

This is getting reasonable reviews and is a timely comedy for the 99%, featuring Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Afleck, Alan Alda and Matthew Broderick. Check out the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi226663961/

We'd love to see you there. If you are running late, don't worry. Come grab a seat and find us in the lobby after the show. Look for the "Mosaic Faith and Film Connect Group" sign. We'll wait for a few minutes after the film before moving to Starbucks for discussion.

Book Review: "The Grace Effect" -- Adoption as answer to atheist debate

2011-11-11T07:06:00.000-08:00

Author: Larry Taunton, 2011. (Thomas Nelson Publishers)

How do you debate a polemic atheist? Most of us probably don't do this often, but Larry Taunton, apologist and executive director of Fixed Point Foundation, does. He opens this book with a prologue focusing on his debate and subsequent dinner with Christopher Hitchens, Oxford scholar and one of the new atheists. Ultimately, though, he doesn't win the debate by making stronger arguments; he wins the debate through his process of adoption of a 12 year-old Ukrainian orphan named Sasha.

Taunton points out, "There is a simple means for determing the goodness of any society, and it is not found in economic or political terms. It is in this: how do they treat their poor, their widowed, and their orphaned?" (page 89). This book is the Taunton family's journey to adopt Sasha, and along the way he points out the dismal moral state of former communist countries. And "when atheism is adopted as a worldview at a societal level, be it passively or actively, its effects on that society is detrimental." (page 34)

"The Grace Effect" is no theological treatise. It is a memoir of this adoption process. I don't usually read or enjoy memoirs, but this one engages early and becomes compelling reading. A quick read, it is as much a page-turner as the latest James Patterson novel.

Taunton alternates pages of history with pages from his story. He took his wife and two of his three sons to Ukraine to complete the adoption begun a year earlier. But what we would expect to take days here in the United States took weeks in that eastern bloc country. Fraught with bribery and corruption, Taunton's frustrations come across clearly. The "gifts" that grease the palms of the officials, even judges, do not often speed the process. But they prevent the process from stalling. There is a clear contrast of cultures.

Indeed, Taunton establishes this purpose right up front, in the foreword:

It is rather, my purpose to make a case for society's need of Christianity's gentling, inspiring, and culturally transforming power. I hope that through the narrative of our experience, readers will be given a glimpse into a world without faith in Jesus Christ and, as a consequence, have greater appreciation for what Christianity has given, is giving, and may give us still if we mine the vast richness of it. (page xii.)

He goes on in chapter one to outline his view of grace, explaining the book's title:

As one experiences grace in his own life, he extends grace to others. Through the inward transformation of the individual, there is a correspoding outward transformation of society. That is what I call the 'grace effect'. Simpy defined, it is an observable phenomenon -- that life is demonstrably better where authentic Christianity flourishes. (page 22)

Sasha is his reality check. Sasha is his demonstration of the grace effect. Having been abandoned at birth and moved from orphanage to orphanage, she met Larry's wife and sons when they were on a short-term mission to the Ukraine. God moved their hearts to consider adoption and then provided the funds needed through individuals and supporters. Not a Christian, Sasha is moved by the grace and love that she experiences from a family, having never known a family before. This grace transforms her as she becomes a daugher and a sister and ultimately a follower of Jesus.

Sasha's redemption is a powerful story of grace at work. Though atheists will consider it just a humanistic effort springing from the goodwill of man, the contrast between the non-Christian and Christian cultures is evidence enough of the failures of man apart from grace.

"The Grace Effect" is an inspiring book. It may not move you to adopt another Sasha. But it will move you to thank God that we live in a country that still bears the imprint of its Christian beginnings. And it will likely cause you to pray for the leaders in our country, that we can continue to live "quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Tim. 2:3).

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received one or more of the products or services mentioned above for free in the hope that I would mention it on my blog. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will be good for my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commision's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

Movie Group for November: Tower Heist Saturday 11/19/11 at Lloyd Center

2011-11-07T07:00:00.000-08:00

We're changing up genres for November, lightening the mood in preparation for the holidays. This month it's a comedy.

•What: Tower Heist (rated PG-13)

•Where: Lloyd Cinemas (not sure yet if in the mall or outside)

•When: TBA (around 4:45 pm showtime)

•Meet: at the theater lobby about 20 minutes before showtime

•Who: movie-lovers from Mosaic Church and friends

•Discussion: Peet's Coffee on Broadway

This is getting reasonable reviews and is a timely comedy for the 99%. The comedic cast looks to be stellar with Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Afleck, Alan Alda and Matthew Broderick. Check out the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi226663961/

So, if you're not "Occupying Portland" we'd love to see you there. If you are running late, don't worry. Come grab a seat and find us in the lobby after the show. Look for the "Mosaic Faith and Film Connect Group" sign. We'll wait for a few minutes after the film before moving to the coffee shop for discussion.

Take Shelter -- fear, anxiety and insanity

2011-11-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Jeff Nichols, 2011. (R)

“Sleep well in your beds. Cause if this thing comes true, there ain’t gonna be any more.” Protagonist Curtis (Michael Shannon, Shotgun Stories) yells this, referring to the coming storm, to a group of onlookers in the most powerful scene of the film. Is he insane or prophetic?

Nichols, using lesser known actors and working with a small budget, focuses on Curtis and his family and how they are impacted by a series of dreams that plague Curtis. He works as a foreman for a sand-mining company in Ohio to provide for his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain, The Tree of Life) and daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart). Hannah’s deafness brings stress onto the relationships and pressure on his paycheck.

When Curtis starts having dreams of an apocalyptic storm, bringing rain like motor oil, things become weird. Odd bird flock formations appear. His dog seems rabid. Strangers become violent. Is he seeing reality or is he losing his connection to reality? Curtis decides he needs to protect his family, and so begins to construct a storm shelter. But is he protecting them from the coming storm or from himself?

Like his stunning debut film, Shotgun Stories, Nichols brings the story along at a slow pace, allowing the viewer the time to see inside these characters’ lives. But he doesn’t show us too much of what is happening, so we feel confused, like the main character. We can appreciate and feel what Curtis is experiencing. And with an eerie score, the anxiety is palpable.

Moreover, the acting is stellar. Shannon brings Curtis' fears to life. His craggy features and his lazy eye contribute to a stunning performance. More of a character actor than leading man, his less than handsome features play well here. And Chastain fills the shoes and skirts of his wife in much the same way that she did against Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life. She is believable as a woman trying to keep her family together alongside a husband that she begins to question. Her fears come across in the little things of life, like her daughter playing outside apart from the other kids.

Anxiety and fear are two themes woven into the thread of this story. Having written this in 2008 when he was a newlywed, Nichols commented on these themes: “Although both my career and personal life were on a positive track, I had a nagging feeling that the world at large was heading for harder times. This free-floating anxiety was part economic, part just growing up, but it mainly came from the fact that I finally had things in my life that I didn’t want to lose. All of these feelings filtered directly into the characters of the film.”

The last decade has brought enormous anxiety and fear to the world. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 in 2001 set the stage, and we have seen ever-increasing threat alerts. Bombings in cities, wars in the middle east, gang violence in inner-city ghettoes bring unease and uncertainty to many. Then there are the housing and financial meltdowns we have seen in the last couple of years that have resulted in government buy-outs of staggering proportions. Such economic woes bring financial fears to families whose plans are dissolved and lost in a day, leaving unemployment and insecurity as the only apparent future. It is no surprise that Take Shelter captures the spirit of the moment. Many of us would want to build a shelter of our own to protect our families from whatever storm is coming.

Anxiety is born out of having something to lose. When we have a family and possessions we feel a need to protect. Having nothing to lose, we can fend off anxiety. But there is another way to avoid anxiety. The apostle Paul tells us, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God” (Phil. 4:6). Regardless of the context, if we look to God and bring our worries to him, he will handle them. Jesus himself told his disciples, and hence us, “in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).

Take Shelter sets us the challenge of determining if Curtis is crazy. This is one of his fears, that he would inherit a legacy of insanity. Even Samantha begins to wonder, and in another of the film’s powerful moments she challenges Curtis to unlock the shelter and confront reality. He wants her to do it, but she insists. He must do it himself if he wishes to protect his family and face his fear.

Although some critics found the film slow, the pacing seems perfect: not too fast, but not too slow. There is enough tension to engage and enough suspense to bring us to the conclusion wondering about Curtis and his family and the storm.

The end itself has drawn differing responses. What happened? Why?

I found myself seeing in Curtis a modern-day Noah. Somehow he has been given a gift of seeing prophetically the coming storm. In Noah’s day (Gen. 6-7), God commanded the prophet to build an arc despite the fact that he lived inland and had never seen rain. His neighbors probably mocked and scorned him, thinking him crazy. But the storm was coming, and when it came he took shelter in the boat he had made. Insane or prophetic, it depends on context.

One thing is sure. The storm will come. No matter what storm it is, we can be confident if we take shelter in the right place. David tells us, “I would hurry to my place of shelter, far from the tempest and storm” (Psa. 55:8). And where is that shelter? David tells us in another of his psalms, “I long to dwell in your tent forever and take refuge in the shelter of your wings” (Psa. 61:4). There is only one true shelter and it is in the Lord: “in the day of trouble he will keep me safe in his dwelling” (Psa. 27:5). Are you ready for the coming storm?

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

The Ides of March -- death of idealism, birth of moral compromise

2011-10-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: George Clooney, 2011. (R)

The closing scene mirrors the opening: the same person sits in front of TV cameras in a large room. Yet as he looks coldly at the camera in the final frame, we realize he is not the same person. Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling, Lars and the Real Girl) has changed. And the film follows the change in his character, a dark deterioration of his soul.

This political drama, directed by George Clooney from his own screenplay, focuses not on the two political parties, but on the two leading Democrats vying to run for President in 2012. The story, then, centers not on politics per se, but on the impact of politics on the characters at the center of the storm.

George Clooney (The American) plays one of these candidates, Governor Mike Morris, a charismatic and likeable politician whose manifesto inspires hope. He has ideals and plans to make the world a better place. Paul Zara (the excellent and schlumpy Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote) leads his campaign, supported by press manager Meyers, the thirty-year-old who is not quite young, not quite old. In contrast, Morris’ opponent, Senator Pullman (Michael Mantell), is a bible-thumper from the south; yet his campaign is led by the sleazy Tom Duffy (another wonderful character actor, Paul Giamatti, Duplicity). These form the main characters, although Evan Rachel Ward (Across the Universe) shows up as sexy intern Molly, and Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) plays Ida Horowicz, a jaded journalist who looks out for herself. And Jeffrey Wright (Source Code) has a minor role as Senator Thompson, a key politician whose favor will carry the nomination. He plays his cards close to his chest.

"The Ides of March" usually refers to the day (March 15) when Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by a group of his senators. Here, though, I think it refers to a different death, the death of idealism or innocence as found in Meyers. At the start, he states passionately that he works for Morris because he believes in the candidate and his ideals. He sees Morris as the one man who can make a difference in America, and even in the world. Meyers places his hope in Morris. But as the film progresses, his hope slowly deteriorates and he begins to compromise his own morals.

It is tempting to place our trust in a specific person, or even in people. Whether that person is a politician or a friend, a husband or a lover, we believe they will change the world or simply change our world. Yet, the truth is that everyone will let us down at some point. Even the best of friends will breach a trust and we will find ourselves disappointed at best, devastated and deeply damaged at worst. When we look to a sinful and broken person to be the provider of hope, we can be sure to find that hope lost. Sin has ensured that. We all stand condemned as sinners (Rom. 3:23). There is no exception (Rom. 3:10). But there is a person who will not disappoint, who we can trust to not let us down – Jesus. He is the sinless son of God (1 Pet. 2:22) who promised us life if we will follow him (Jn. 10:10), a life that will include suffering on the earth (Rom. 8:17) but which will be bereft of tears and sorrow in heaven (Rev. 21:4). In him all the promises of God are a resounding yes (2 Cor. 1:20). He is no politician, changing his words and his allies as the winds blow. No, he is our faithful and true redeemer (Gal. 3:13). He is the one person we can and should turn to.

In the first act, Meyers’ idealism stands in center stage. He follows Morris like a hound-dog with media-savvy ideas. It seems the film is about the two candidates. But two events turn the film into a compelling drama, a gripping character study full of intrigue and deception. The first occurs when Meyers makes a mistake and enters a meeting he should have avoided. The second occurs when he sleeps with the intern. There, he discovers a secret, one that shatters his idealism. In one moment, his carefully constructed world comes crashing down. Later, he confronts Molly and tells her that in the big leagues you get only one shot and one mistake sends you back home. This seems cold and callous, yet it comes full circle as he himself has had made the mistake that bans him from the big game.

Meyers has it right, though, when he says to one character that the mistake was not an accident but a choice. Mistakes have consequences but imply no moral involvement. When we see them as a choice that we made, we are forced to accept our moral accountability. When we lay the grid of “choice” back over the film, or even over our lives, we see things more clearly, we understand that all is not well with the souls of the major characters, or with our own soul. Our bent is to sin. Our choices tend to be selfish and self-protective.

The second act depicts Meyer’s deterioration into moral compromise. And we see that all the characters, including Morris, are players, seeking to play even as they in turn are being played. At the end, Stephen’s transformation is evident in his interaction with Ida, the journalist. Earlier she had told him their “friendship” was a superficial mask that allowed each to get ahead: she got the scoop from him, and he got a positive write-up from her. Friendship had nothing to do with it. Now, as he walks as an insider past the cordon that is stopping her, she asks him, “Hey, Steve. I’m still your friend, right?” He stops, and coolly gazes at her before replying, “You’re my best friend, Ida.” He has fallen from idealism.

Yet one thing is troubling. For a thirty-year-old who has masterminded the press campaigns for a number of politicians, it is difficult to understand how Meyers could have remained dewy-eyed and innocent. Even lesser politics than presidential nominations would have tarnished the innocence he carried. This idealism is implausible, although it allows for his fall from the grace.

Clooney adapted this material from Beau Willimon’s 2008 stage play entitled “Farragut North”. And this explains the depth of characters present. Christianity Today reviewer Josh Hurst commented,

“it’s essentially an action movie, one that moves so quickly and takes so many sharp turns you’ll leave finger impressions all over your theater seat and leave feeling a little whiplashed. And yet the thrills all come through character development and intense conversations; there are no scenes of violence here, no guns, no car chases.”

The strength of the film is indeed its acting. With a cast this stellar, that is to be expected.

If you like political intrigue and strong character-driven films, this is one for you. But it is dark and somewhat depressing, offering little in the way of hope. The cleanest character is a manipulator, who lies for a living. Instead, it presents the inevitability of the corruption of ideals in the absence of a rock, like Jesus. Be warned about The Ides of March!

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

The Mighty Macs -- teamwork, commitment and dreams

2011-10-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Tim Chambers, 2011. (G)

What was the last movie you saw whose main characters were a married Baptist woman and a pretty young nun who drank together in a bar? If you can’t remember, why not see this one where these two become the coaching force behind a women’s collegiate basketball team. Written, directed and produced by Tim Chambers, The Mighty Macs is a feel-good family film that is wholesome and engaging. Despite a “by-the-numbers” approach, it elicits a strong emotional appeal as it carries us along the journey of an underdog team. Based on the true story of the Mighty Macs, the film keeps us enthralled, even if the end is known, till the last buzzer sounds and the champion is crowned.

The year is 1971, a time when women mostly stayed at home while their husbands worked. But like Rita O’Grady in Made in Dagenham, a contemporary film also centered on an inspiring and liberating woman, Cathy Rush (Carla Gugino, Watchmen) is a woman ahead of her time. Recently married, she decides to apply for the coaching position at Immaculata College in Philadelphia, a small Catholic school not known for their sports programs. Offered the position by Mother Superior (Ellen Burstyn, The Fountain), she discovers the obstacles that stand in her way: there is no gym, she has little support from the school’s administration, and the school is in dire financial straits. Worse yet, the students aren’t overly interested in a basketball team.

But team is what the film is about. And with the first national championship for women’s basketball at stake, teamwork is what is needed. Right from the start, Coach Rush tells the team that trust and teamwork are what win a championship.

Teamwork is the first value in this values-oriented sports drama. In an era when we emulate stars, the franchise players, The Mighty Macs calls us back to our place among others. Coach Rush tells her team to destroy ego. There is no I in TEAM. Five good players working in perfect synchronism with one another are better than five excellent players working apart. Whatever teams we find ourselves in, whether in sports or work, focusing on the team above self is a sure recipe for success. The apostle Paul tells us “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves” (Phil. 2:3-4). This is the foundation of teamwork.

As the team begins to gel, Coach Rush needs an assistant and she finds one in the young Sister Sunday (Marley Shelton, W). A former player, she agrees to work with the team and finds her downcast view of life in the convent uplifted and changed.

Change and commitment are two more positive values stressed in the film. Sister Sunday comments, “Change is vital.” It is, but it is conjoined to commitment. They go hand in hand. To win, the players had to want it, they had to be committed. But they needed to change, to improve. And that took sacrifice, and was painful.

No one likes change. Well, most people don’t like it. But without change we die. Growth is change. We cannot reach our goals if we do not embrace change. We cannot realize our dreams unless we are committed to them and push through any and all obstacles that come our way.

Daring to dream is the film’s tagline. A key scene involves the main player, Trish Starkey (Katie Hayek). Coming from a poor family, she approaches Coach Rush privately to inform her she has gotten a part-time job. She wants to be able to practice with the team on a limited basis. But Coach Rush tells her she must choose one or the other. The team requires complete commitment, not part-time participation. Then she asks Trish if working at the store is her dream. Obviously, it is not. Daring to dream requires stepping out in faith and making the commitments needed.

Do we dare to dream? Are we prepared to look above and beyond our current existence and see something bigger and better, like Rush? Or are we trapped in the here and now, eking out a sterile survival like Trish almost did? Are we so settled into our ruts that we refuse to change? Dreams motivate. Dreams inspire. Dreams move us forward.

Dreams drive us to discipline. In a key pep talk to the team, Coach Rush quotes Paul’s comments on athletics: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize” (1 Cor. 9:24). Because of the teamwork, she tells them they deserve to win, to attain their dreams. They have made the sacrifices, they have changed together.

As the film progresses, the underdog Macs go from being lackluster losers to competing to finally winning. Their rivalry with Maryland reveals a secret in Coach Rush’s past and gives them opportunity to banish the ghosts of the past. Of course as with most Cinderella-sports films, while the Macs don’t appear to have a prayer, their commitment and teamwork prove that such appearances can be wrong. Even if they play in outdated uniforms with second-hand sneakers, their heart is in the right place and the “W’s” appear in the box-score.

Gugino and Shelton have excellent chemistry as the two women pushed together to change the Mighty Macs. They are the heart of the film and they win us over. The players are largely unknowns and that plays to the concept of teamwork over ego. Their acting is adequate alone but remarkably acceptable together. And this turns an ordinary sports film into an uplifting charmer, one that runs over with sentiment and energy. I must admit I shed a few tears along the way.

My favorite scene occurs in a bar where Coach Rush and Sister Sunday stop for a beer on the way home from a game. Letting her habit fall and her hair down, Sister Sunday recounts the story of her unconventional journey to the convent. They are from different faith backgrounds but both believe in the Lord Jesus. And my favorite line comes when Sister Sunday says, “Jesus likes to dance”. That was her reason for becoming a nun.

What does this mean? I think it refers to the fact that Jesus is not a humorless rule-keeping, fun-avoiding fuddy-duddy. He wants to live life to the fullest just as he wants this for us, too (Jn. 10:10). Sister Sunday points to the wedding at Cana in Galilee (Jn. 2) where Jesus turned water into wine when the wine ran out. He was deeply involved in this celebration of life. He enjoyed the victories, he laughed with his friends. But he was also committed to his mission and vision and poured himself into that (Matt. 16:21). We can, no we must, see Jesus as the Savior who leads, who loves, who dances and who dreams. And we must dare to believe!

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Hanna -- coldness of life apart from family

2011-10-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Joe Wright, 2011. (R)

“I just missed your heart.” The main character Hanna (Saoirse Ronan, Atonement) utters this line to open and close the film. And it aptly sums up the movie: it has no heart. Moreover, the characters seem heartless, cold and detached. None display enough emotion to warrant the viewer caring about what happens to any of them.

We meet Hanna in the wilds of Finland, where she and her father Erik (Eric Bana, Star Trek) live an isolated life, existing on the barest essentials. No electricity, running water or central heating, they hunt their food and chop their wood. He teaches her multiple languages, and facts from the encyclopedia while putting her through rigorous physical training. She is being groomed as an assassin. Erik comes at her by day and by night to attack her with knife or bow, fists or feet, to ensure that she can defend herself against attack. Not what you’d call the normal upbringing for an American teenager.

Hanna has come of age, though. She is ready to face the big bad world. When she challenges Erik about this, he puts a radio transmitter on the table and tells her she can push the button that will send a signal out to the world. More specifically, it will alert Melissa (Cate Blanchett, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), a high ranking CIA operative who wants both Erik and Hanna dead. Of course, Hanna presses the button, that sets of a three-way chase that is the body of the film.

Erik departs alone to Germany, telling Hanna to follow him later. Melissa sends a military team to capture Hanna. But when she eventually escapes her captors, Melissa sends Isaacs (Tom Hollander), a dirty ops man and his two team members to follow Hanna, and track Erik.

Director Joe Wright has done period pieces before, helming Atonement in 2007, so clearly knows how to create stylish films. But even that Oscar-nominated film was cold, with characters who seemed unrelatable. In Atonement, the best character was played by Saoirse Ronan, the main character here. But Wright seems a little lost with an action thriller. He gets the pacing wrong, fills the screen with people with no personalities and flubs the story. The plot, what there is of it, remains a cipher, unresolved at the conclusion. In a word, it seems pointless.

Melissa is a cold and callous killer. Hanna is a young and robotic killer. Erik is a cynical killer. Isaacs and team are sadistic killers. You get the picture.

Along the way, Hanna meets a liberal English family travelling across North Africa and Europe. Their teen-aged daughter Sophie (Jessica Barden) wants to befriend Hanna but does not realize how unaccustomed to relationships Hanna is. As she spends time with Sophie and her family, she shares some moments of tenderness, and the film offers some moments of levity. But even these seemed forced and somewhat extreme.

Early in the film, as they face their isolation, Erik tells Hanna they have everything they need. She denies this, telling him she craves something more. She never says what it is, but the contrast of Erik and Hana with the RV-traveling family underscores her real need: tenderness and love.

A family that focuses on utilitarian pragmatism, teaching survival skills and language lessons but ignores love and friendship, is no family, just a shell. The apostle Paul spoke of love in 1 Cor. 13: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (verse 1). He went on, “Love never fails” (v.8), and then concludes this love chapter with these words (v.13): “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” We may need to learn to hunt and fight and that will keep us alive. But life without love is empty and meaningless. That is Hanna’s life. That is Hanna!

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Made in Dagenham -- leadership and equality

2011-10-16T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Nigel Cole, 2010. (R)

Many people will ask two questions of this movie up front: where is Dagenham? And what is made in Dagenham? Well, Dagenham is a suburb of London, and in the 1960s Ford cars were made in Dagenham. Indeed, Ford Motor Company was one of the largest private employers in the United Kingdom and carried some clout with the Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, and his cabinet. More than this, though, they employed thousands of men but only 187 women.

Made in Dagenham presents the true story of these women, focused on Rita O’Grady (Sally Hawkins, Happy Go Lucky), a normal working-class mother and wife, who took on this giant and won. It is a David vs Goliath story that has tremendous heart, and much of this goes to the stellar casting. Hawkins delights as Rita, giving her a lightness of spirit that charms and endears, even as she fights valiantly for what she believes in. Bob Hoskins provides excellent support as the union rep Albert Passingham who sees the potential in Rita when no one else does, including her husband Eddie (Daniel Mays).

Rita and her fellow female workers sew car seat upholstery as machinists. They slave away in sweatshop conditions, literally, having to strip down to bra and panties in the heat, and having to put up umbrellas to catch the drips when it rains.

Since these women have been reclassified as unskilled, rather than semi-skilled, workers they decide to stand up to management. Albert takes shop steward Connie (Geraldine James) and Rita as his team to present their claims to the snotty managers. When the “old-boys school” manner takes over and management offers empty promises, Rita interrupts the chief union rep, speaking her mind. And she tells the managers the truth, setting the stage for a strike by the women, something no one believed would happen.

With this, Albert realizes Rita is a natural leader. Taking her aside, he tells her why he, alone, of all the men supports the women. He shares a heart-felt story of his youth. And she picks up the baton, becoming the leader he envisions, even though it undermines her marriage and family.

Rita offers a wonderful picture of leadership. Not looking for such a position, it found her and she rose to the occasion. People often claim that leaders are born not made, but leaders can learn and be groomed. Leadership is a talent that can be developed. In Rita’s case, she becomes visibly stronger as her opportunities to speak increase. Her leadership flows from her passion, commitment and integrity. She is reminiscent of David, the second King of the Israelites in the Old Testament. He, too, fought a giant, and he, too, was not seen as a leader initially. When God sent Samuel to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king, Jesse thought of his older and bigger sons. Even Samuel looked at the outward appearance (1 Sam. 16:6ff). But God had chosen David, and groomed him. Indeed, he had “sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people” (1 Sam. 13:14). We all possess some talent in leadership, and may find the opportunity to demonstrate it, especially if we stand prepared.

The main issue involved lends weight to the plot. When Rita learns that even if they are regraded as semi-skilled, the women will earn an appalling fraction of the men’s wages, the stakes are raised. No longer is it a matter of pay grade; now it is a matter of pay equality. Rita lifts the banner high for women everywhere, and her peers follow her. Leadership in action!

Three scenes stand out, all highly emotional. In the first, Rita toils despondently at home, her family now opposed to her strike, when an acquaintance Lisa (Rosamund Pike, An Education) comes to her flat. Lisa, whose husband is one of the managers opposing Rita, tells her: “I’m Lisa Burnett. I’m 31 years old and I have a first class honors degree from one of the finest universities in the world [Cambridge], and my husband treats me like I’m a fool.” At her middle-class home, she is merely a trophy wife, yet she sees the value of what Rita is doing. She understands she is making history. What an encouragement from an unlikely source. Even the best leaders will face the darkness of the soul and can use encouragement.

Then there is a scene late in the film between Rita and Eddie. Rita has just delivered the speech of her life, despite the fact that hours before she argued with Eddie about her involvement. He had berated and belittled her. Now, he comes to her and emotionally apologizes, offering his belated but whole-hearted support.

The third scene involves Barbara Castle (Miranda Richardson), Harold Wilson’s Secretary of State. She rises from her desk and tells her two dunderheaded assistants: “I am what is known as a fiery redhead. Now, I hate to make this a matter of appearance and go all womanly on you, but there you have it. And me standing up like this is in fact just that redheaded fieriness leaping to the fore. Credence? I will give credence to their cause. My God! Their cause already has credence. It is equal pay. Equal pay is common justice.” The top female politician understands and supports Rita’s cause.

The thrust of the ethics involved focuses on equality and dignity of women. In the eyes of God, man and woman stand equal in personhood and being. Both are formed in his image (Gen. 1:26). Both deserve equal pay for equal work. Rita’s leadership forged the way for a bill in English Parliament that enabled this. Yet, still today in many countries women are treated as second-class citizens, earning less than male workers. Even in the United States, Census Bureau data shows that in 2008 women earned in general 77% of what men earned. Four decades after Rita O’Grady, American women are still not getting equal pay! The Paycheck Fairness Act approved by the House of Representatives in 2009, which would expand the scope of equal pay, failed to pass Senate and continues to be debated in Congress even today. Sadly, such injustice and inequality is still the state of the union.

Made in Dagenham offers dual benefits: excellent entertainment and ethical enlightenment. Not many films can stake that claim. And when most things carry the tag, “Made in China”, it is a blessing to remember a time when products were “Made in England”!

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

"The Ides of March" -- this Saturday 10/15/11, 4:45 at CTC!

2011-10-13T18:34:00.000-07:00

I have firmed up the time of the first movie group meeting this Saturday:

What: The Ides of March (rated R)
Where: Century Theater, Clackamas Town Center
Showtime: 4:45 pm
Meet: at the theater lobby at 4:25pm
Who: movie-lovers from Mosaic Church and friends
Discussion: Clackamas Town Center Food Court

Directde by George Clooney, and starring him and Ryan Gosling, this looks to be a terrific political thriller. Check out the trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theidesofmarch/

We'd love to see you there. If you are running late, don't worry. Come find a seat and find us in the lobby after the show: look for the "Mosaic Faith and Film Connect Group" sign. We'll pick up discussion in the food court after we have bought some refreshments.

See you Saturday!

Manon of the Spring (Manon des sources) -- revenge or resolving injustice?

2011-10-12T19:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Claude Berri, 1986. (PG-13)

Ten years on from Jean de Florette, all has changed. The Soubeyrans, Cesar (Yves Montand) and nephew Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil), now own the Florette land in Provence, France. They have used the spring of water on that land to irrigate the carnation farm and they are thriving. Life is good to them. Manon (Emmanuelle Beart, 8 Women), on the other hand, remains in the Provence countryside living the lonely life of a goat-herder, apart from her mother, who has returned to her former life as an opera singer.

In the first film Cesar focused on the land, and acquired it through deceptive means at the cost of Florette’s family. Here, though, his focus is on family, not land. As an elderly bachelor, he wants Ugolin to find a woman to marry to continue the Soubeyran name. Of course, when he by chance stumbles on Manon, bathing in a spring, he falls in love and decides this is the woman for him. Meanwhile, Manon has eyes for the new young school-teacher Bernard (Hippolyte Girardot).

An early scene sets the tone for the characters in this love triangle, and it is centered on gift-giving. Ugolin has secretly given Manon a snared rabbit. Bernard wants to give her his pocket knife, but she does not want to accept. Finally, she accepts the knife as long as Bernard takes the rabbit. She is unknowingly rejecting Ugolin and his secret and somewhat deceptive advances.

Like Jean de Florette, Manon of the Spring moves at a majestic pace with a cinematic beauty. This time, though, the story begins with the understanding of the injustice done to Manon and her family. The film stands alone, but when seen as the conclusion of the earlier film, it truly carries the weight of an epic, spanning four generations of a family.

Two accidental discoveries disrupt Manon’s life and put her on a path that intersects Cesar and Ugolin. First, in saving a goat that has fallen down into a cave, Manon finds the source of the spring water: here is the water of life for the Soubeyrans and indeed the whole village. Second, she overhears two villagers discussing how Cesar cheated Jean de Florette out of his land. With these two secrets available to her, Manon plots revenge, blocking the spring and bringing a drought on the village and the land.

Is Manon’s motive revenge? Revenge focuses on exacting punishment for a wrong done by someone, but carries a negative connotation. It is usually done with a vindictive spirit. Scripture warns, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). Certainly, there is an aspect of revenge here. But in the broader context of the two films, there is a sense of justice prevailing. Injustice occurred in the first film. But injustice is always wrong, being a misuse of power to take from someone what God has given. God hates injustice: “for with the LORD our God there is no injustice” (2 Chron. 19:7). And since the whole village had some knowledge of the existence of Florette’s spring, they are guilty of Cesar’s injustice to some degree, accomplices after the fact. Manon seeks justice on all who have been implicated.

As Manon’s scheme progresses and the story unfolds with inexorable justice, the Soubeyrans come face to face with tragedy themselves. Furthermore, when the film comes to its climax, Cesar learns a secret that radically shifts his perspective. Just as the first film ended with a shocking ending that left the viewer hanging, Manon of the Spring ends with a surprise that brings real satisfaction. Indeed, this secret illustrates poignantly the biblical truth that God brings “the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them” (Jer. 32:18). The sins of the Soubeyrans’ ancestors have been visited on the children.

The reference to Jeremiah omitted the first part of the verse about God, namely that “You show love to thousands”. And he does. God is a God of love and justice. In Manon of the Spring, injustice is righted and no doubt God is pleased. Justice always results in acts of compassion by God (2 Cor. 1:3) and judgment from God (Jer. 5:26-29). Here, the conclusion shows both, through one event that ironically brings regret to Cesar and rapture to Manon.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Jean de Florette -- unseen enemies, unseen solutions

2011-10-08T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Claude Berri, 1986 (NR)

A pastoral scene emerges at the start of Jean de Florette, a slow but beautiful French film. The rustic beauty of a sleepy French village in 1920s Provence appears tranquil, almost idyllic. But this belies the truth: the greed inherent in man can destroy life, turning a prosperous farm into a dry and dusty ruin.

This is the story of two families, the Soubeyrans and the Florettes. They are the old and the new, the cynical and the modern. Cesar Soubeyran (Yves Montand) is the old bachelor running his vineyard, living alone, a sad life. When his nephew Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) returns from military service, Ugolin has a dream of developing a carnation farm. But this dream is stillborn since they have no water on their land. They need a well or a spring; this is what their neighbor has. But he won’t share with them or sell his land to them. And, despite his age, Cesar is not afraid to get his hands dirtied with blood.

When the hunchback Jean de Florette (Gerard Depardieu) and his family, wife Aimee Cadoret (Elisabeth Depardieu, Gerard’s former wife) and daughter Manon Cadoret (Ernestine Mazurowna), move into the farm they inherit next to Soubeyran, they have a dream of raising rabbits. Jean has a modern plan, relying on statistics and methods. And he has money to carry him through the initial set-up years. But, like Cesar, he needs water. Unbeknownst to him, the two Soubeyrans have blocked his spring and are waiting for a drought to force him to sell.

There is a biblical parallel that springs to mind: the story of Ahab’s desire for Naboth’s vineyard, told in 1 Kings 21. The king wanted Naboth’s land but would not take it, so his evil wife Jezebel hired two scoundrels to make slanderous accusations against Naboth that led directly to his execution. When he had been stoned to death, Ahab took the land for himself. Desire births greed which in turn births wicked schemes that ignore the pain that they bring to others.

What underscores the tragic consequences of Cesar’s greed is the behavior of Ugolin. Sent by his uncle to befriend Jean and his family, he gets close to them appearing to be a good neighbor who is at hand to help. In reality he is a spy for his uncle, doing all he can to undermine Jean’s plans.

Jean has two enemies in the film: the Soubeyrans. He sees Ugolin as a friend but misses his true nature. Yet he never even meets Cesar, who remains an unseen foe, one hovering at the periphery of the picture watching and waiting, patient for the fall of Florette.

In real life we often fail to see our real enemy: Satan (2 Cor. 11:14). He roams like a ferocious lion seeking to devour and destroy us (1 Pet. 5:8), yet we cannot see him and so often ignore him. This is a mistake. Visible enemies may have some power but this pales in comparison to that of Satan. On our own we cannot stand in his way. Only in the power of Christ, who has already conquered Satan (Col. 2:15), can we expect victory. But to gain such triumph we must first trust Jesus and then we must accept that we are in the midst of a spiritual war; Satan is the commander of those opposing forces.

Director Berri refuses, however, to sink to melodrama or to rise to suspense. He prefers to lay out the film like a slow walk in the meadows. The characters are clearly on display without hiding their motivations. Though Jean cannot see what is going on, we can. And the long expansive shots in the cinematography capture the idea of the vastness and value of the land, even the difficulty of working the land. This gets to the point of the film: the relentless nature of human greed subjugates the value of the human spirit. It is willing to sacrifice people for the goal of gaining the land and its water. Further, the slow deliberate pace underscores the patience of the greedy as they wait slowly for their schemes to come to fruition.

Two scenes stand out. In one, Jean is forcing his mule and himself to make multiple treks across his land to a neighboring well to carry water back. Like his mule, he is a beast of burden. Seeing his “friend” Ugolin, he asks if he can borrow Ugolin’s mule as well, to make his task easier. Ugolin appears sympathetic, but lies to him and gently refuses to help. Ugolin wants to see him wither and waste away, but Jean does not know this. In another scene, the storm that Jean predicts will come arrives in the middle of the night. Seeing lightning strikes and hearing thunderclaps, Jean throws open his windows and runs out into the rainy night . . . only to discover the rain is falling across the valley, not on his fields. He stands there with his family, looking up into the night sky, and shakes his fist at the heavens and rails at the God who has forsaken him.

The tragedy is that the answer to his problems was staring him in the face. He had a spring, he just didn’t know. How often are we like Jean de Florette? Our problem seems insurmountable, yet the solution is right in front of us, we just can’t see it. Too often, though, we cry against God, seeing him as the enemy, thinking he has put us in the difficult situation and then left us. We blame God. It is his fault.

God is not like this. He does not leave us or forsake us (Matt. 28:20). Quite the opposite in fact. He has promised that “he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” (1 Cor. 10:13) We need to trust God and see his hand working in and around us. Paraphrasing Elisha’s prayer in 1 Kings 6, we might pray, “Open our spiritual eyes, LORD, so that we may see” and then we will likely discover the answer to our problems.

Jean de Florette evokes life in the pre-industrial world of rural France and bears watching. But if you do, be aware that it is only part 1 and it ends suddenly, leaving the viewer frustrated at the final turn of events. You had better have part 2 of this epic, Manon of the Spring, ready to bring this to a hopefully more satisfying conclusion.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Four Lions -- suicide-bombers and radical Christianity

2011-10-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Christopher Morris, 2010. (R)

Four Lions is a funny, often hilarious, black comedy about a most deadly subject: suicide bombers. Given its nature as a parody of Islamic jihadists, it is certain to offend viewers. Of course, radical Muslims are unlikely to watch this, but moderates and followers of other religions with sensitive sensibilities will be affronted. But viewers with a tougher skin or who love spoofs and can follow thick British accents will roar with laughter.

The film focuses on a small group of British terrorist wannabes, living somewhere in the English Midlands. Barry (Nigel Lindsay) is the blond-haired white Islamic convert who thinks he runs the group. But Omar (Riz Ahmed) is the real brains behind this bomb-beholden band of brothers. Along with Waj (Kayvan Novak), Omar’s sheep-like follower, and Faisal (Adeel Akhtar), they meet secretly at one of their homes to plot their attack at the Great Satan of Western Europe. Yet, while the focus is on the ideology of the terrorists, the film really focuses on these four idiots embracing this ideology.

Razor-sharp verbal dialog abounds. For example, Waj excitedly tells Omar, “We’ll blow up something.” When Omar asks, “What we gonna blow up Waj?” he asnwers with complete conviction, “The internet!” Or when Barry’s getaway car almost breaks down due to his lack of maintenance, instead he blames “the parts . . . they’re Jewish. Spark plugs! Jews invented spark plugs to control global traffic.”

The comic set-pieces, too, provide tremendous opportunity for farce and slapstick. When Omar and Waj go to Pakistan to boot camp to become ‘real soldiers’ in the war of terrorism, they cause death and destruction on a grand scale . . . only to their own army. And they get sent back home as failed terrorist graduates. Soldiers they are not! Or there is Faisal’s idea of flying bombs. Instead of hijacking airliners and having them fly into buildings, he is training crows to carry miniature bombs into stores. And rather than target something grandiose like the World Trade Center or perhaps the Houses of Parliament, they are satisfied to bomb Boots, a local pharmacy store.

Yet, Four Lions offers some thoughts on religion and radicalists. The appeal of the jihad and the terrorist cell for some of these lions is camaraderie. They have a common mission and sense of belonging. It underscores the human need for relationship and fitting in. The normal way to meet these needs is through clubs, societies, organizations or churches, where healthy relationships form and foster. When people feel ostracized by society or are indoctrinated to see society as decadent and depraved, they may turn away and seek to destroy this society forming their own “reform group” for this various mission.

What is strange about Omar at least is his very normality, or appearance of such. Married with a child, he would seem to be a successful Muslim in the land he wishes to destroy. He even tells his wife and son that he wants to be a martyr and they are proud of his desire to kill himself and others. From all outward appearances, he would not be a suicide bomber. Yet, like the thriller Arlington Road, Four Lions makes clear that we can be deceived by our neighbors. We could be living next door to a killer or suicide bomber. Those like Barry are much more likely to be picked out by Homeland Security to their outspoken threats.

More than these, though, Four Lions forces us to consider what religious commitment really means. Is a suicide-bomber bent on jihad a better Muslim than a moderate who goes regularly to mosque to pray and worship Allah? Why is killing these “infidels” a sign of religious conviction?

Closer to home, what is true religious commitment in the Christian faith? Is a disciple of Jesus called to be a suicide-bomber? Yes and no. Jesus tells those following him, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). The cross was the Roman implement of death, a painful execution via crucifixion. So Jesus is telling them to put themselves to death, not literally but spiritually. This is a form of suicide, but one that does not kill others. The apostle Paul echoes this idea many times, telling us to “put to death the misdeeds of the body” (Rom. 8:13) or that “we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body” (2 Cor. 4:11). No, instead disciples of Jesus are to be suicide-lovers, disciples of love. We are to obey the new command he gave us: “Love one another” (Jn. 13:34). And instead of blowing up our enemies, Jesus says “I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44).

We might ask, if we want to show our religious devotion to our God how can we do it? This is the question raised by the prophet Micah, centuries before Jesus walked the earth. “And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). There is no justice in suicide bombing or terrorism. Those are unjust and despicable acts. Love, mercy and humility are the true characteristics of a radical follower of the Lord God. These qualities produce life-giving and life-affirming acts rather than bringing death and destruction. Radical Christianity lifts Jesus up, helps those in need, and benefits society positively. Our jihad is against Satan, the true enemy of humanity.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Source Code -- memory, identity and changing the past

2011-09-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Duncan Jones, 2011. (PG-13)

Source Code is a science fiction film set in an alternate present that crosses Groundhog Day with Memento (or possibly Avatar), resulting in a thriller that is intriguing at times and frustrating at others, especially the end which some love and others hate. Jones’ second movie, like his first (Moon), focuses on an isolated person and delves into themes of identity and memory. Unlike Moon, though, Source Code clearly has a bigger budget and more extensive cast.

The film begins as Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal, Brothers), a US Air Force helicopter pilot, wakes to find himself on a commuter train bound for Chicago. Opposite him sits Christina (Michelle Monaghan), a pretty woman who is in the middle of a conversation with him. But Stevens doesn’t know her and isn’t who she thinks he is. He has somehow assumed the identity of another man. Confused, Stevens sees the array of passengers and cannot understand what is happening until 8 minutes later a bomb explodes and all aboard are killed.

Instead of dying, Stevens comes awake in a pod-like structure where he is strapped into a chair. With his last memory of a mission in Afghanistan, he is disoriented. His only source of contact is a military officer, Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air). Speaking to him through a video display, she tells him to focus on his mission, which is to find the bomb and the identity of the bomber on the train. She is single-minded and won’t address his concerns about memory or his desire to speak to his father. Instead she hits a button and sends him back into the train, once more picking up at the beginning. This time, though, he remembers what she has told him and recalls some of what happened in the earlier segment. Knowing that, he can change his approach.

Memory and identity. Is Steven’s identity defined by his memory? If he inhabits someone else’s memory does this change his identity? For Christina, this seems to be true. She sees Stevens as another person and interacts with him as such. But is our identity defined by memory? Or is it broader than that, with memory being just a piece of the puzzle?

Obviously if identity is synonymous with memory, then amnesiacs and Altzheimer’s patients have lost their identity. But true identity is not displaced quite so easily. If we have chosen to follow Jesus, his promise is to bring us into his kingdom for an eternity of life after death (Jn. 14:2). Such a promise cannot be broken by physical or mental damage in this earthly life. If so, God’s promises would be fragile and faulty, something potentially lost. But that is not what Scripture communicates: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). So, even if memory is damaged or lost, God still remembers who we are and in the spiritual realm and the hereafter we will retain our unique identity. Memory will be restored to us in that wonderful place (Rev. 21:4).

Instead, identity is defined by relationship. I am the son of my parents, bearing their name. I carry their genes and have characteristics that come from them. This is the identity we are born with. We also have a new identity, one that comes from a choice to relate positively to God through Jesus Christ. We can become children of God (Jn. 1:12), uniquely defined in this new relationship. Then we find our identity in our new father, and have the image of Jesus progressively manifested in us as we grow more and more into his likeness over time (Rom. 8:29, 2 Cor. 3;18).

As in Groundhog Day, Stevens finds himself being sent back to the same 8 minutes of the train journey for the mission described by Goodwin, as well as the mysterious Dr Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) who stands behind her in the video frame. Each time, the scene plays out differently as Stevens begins to make choices that depart from his instructions.

The second theme that emerges is that of consent. Stevens is ordered to fulfill his mission, but it is not clear that he has given his consent to this. Though he is a military officer, he seems to be imprisoned in this pod without knowledge of the project he is involved with. Is it right, therefore, that he should be subjected to these multiple deaths if he wishes not to be sent back? Does his military enrollment allow his superiors to order him into this strange scenario without giving him any basic briefing?

We tend to assume that as human beings we have right to choice, that we cannot be held against our will and forced to play a part in such a disturbing drama. Even under a “need to know” banner, the military tend to give the troops enough information to enable success in the mission. Stevens, though, is clearly being held without his consent and possibly against his will. Since this is denying freedom of choice, it is ethically wrong. And as the movie plays out, this becomes clear. Unless we commit a crime, we have the right (at least in the United States), to liberty. Consent is indeed a civil liberty.

Jones does a good job of pacing, slowly revealing information with each new 8 minutes of Stevens’ train ride, enabling the viewer to solve the puzzle. Yet he retains a twist or two for the end. He also gets fair performances out of his cast. Gyllenhaal is a sympathetic hero, a man who moves from confused to concerned with a growing interest in Christina. Monaghan does what she can with a character who has no backstory.

The final theme centers on changing the past. Even though Goodwin tells him, “The program wasn’t designed to alter the past. It was designed to affect the future,” Stevens becomes more and more fixated on saving the passengers on the train, especially Christina. He thinks of the past even as Goodwin looks to the future.

This raises an interesting question: if you could change something in the past, would you? And if so, what would it be? To go along with the premise of the film, if you could go back 8 minutes in your life, is there one scene you would return to and make changes that would alter the trajectory of your life and those around you? If you answer yes, you probably carry some regret for mistakes made. Yet, we need to forgive ourselves for these, knowing God has already forgiven us (Eph. 1:7), and move on in the knowledge that we cannot go back and make such changes. Source Code is science fiction so allows for time reassignment; real life is linear. Maybe we should be thankful for that!

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Next Movie Group Film (10/15/11): The Ides of March

2011-09-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

The plan for the first movie group meeting of season 5 is as follows:

What: The Ides of March (rated R)
Where: Century Theater, Clackamas Town Center
When: TBA (around 4:45 pm showtime)
Meet: at the theater lobby about 20minutes before showtime
Who: movie-lovers from Mosaic Church and friends
Discussion: Clackamas Town Center Food Court

This looks to be a terrific political thriller. The cast is stellar with George Clooney (also director and writer), Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour-Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, and Evan Rachel Wood. Check out the trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theidesofmarch/

We'd love to see you there. If you are running late, don't worry. Come find a seat and find us in the lobby after the show. Look for the "Mosaic Faith and Film Connect Group" sign held We'll convene for a few minutes after the film before moving to the food court for refreshments and discussion.

Paul -- subjective truths and shattering faiths

2011-09-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Greg Mottola, 2011. (R)

OK, I must confess: Hot Fuzz is one of my favorite films. No, it did not win any major awards. But this English comedy spoofs so many buddy-cop movies and Westerns and has so many classic lines (like, “Pub!” or "the greater good") that it is the mashed potatoes of movies for me: a comfort film I can watch again and again, especially with British friends. So when Paul came out written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, the two stars of Hot Fuzz, my hopes were high. Sadly, this film is no Hot Fuzz. It has its moments, spoofing or referncing many older science fiction films, like Close Encounters and Star Wars, but it has too many unnecessary sexual references and borders on offensive.

Pegg and Frost are two British comic book geeks, Graeme and Clive, visiting America for comic-con. After paying homage to various sci-fi books, films and even video games, the two embark on a road trip, a pilgrimage to the UFO heartlands of America, places like Area 52. Setting out in a monster RV, these two run afoul of two redneck Americans who mistake them for a pair of gay lovers. After they crash into the rednecks’ truck, they realize have created a pair of enemies set on hunting them down. And then when they witness a car crash on an empty road later that night, they run into one survivor – Paul, an alien who speaks perfect English (voice of Seth Rogen). Taking him on board, this unlikely pair set off on an adventure to return him to his ship.

The film actually begins a half century earlier, when Paul’s spaceship crashes to earth. At that time he was taken to a secret establishment to be studied but was really a prisoner of the military. Once he understands this, and that he has told them all he knows, he realizes he must escape or be killed. But he is pursued by shadowy government figures led by Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman, Up in the Air). And that brings us to Graeme and Clive.

With Agent Zoil and the two rednecks chasing them, Graeme, Clive and Paul stop at an RV site where they meet Ruth (Kristen Wiig) and her father Moses Bugg (John Carroll Lynch, Shutter Island). They are devout, fundamentalist Christians, but clearly a gross caricature. They are a parody of Christian literalists and form the brunt of many of the jokes. Herein is where some of the humor might seem offensive, particularly to religious believers. But it is also here that some of the interesting moral themes emerge.

Once the Buggs come on the scene it is clear that there is an anti-religion, and particularly anti-Christian, message to this movie. When Paul “shows” Ruth the truths of the universe in a Vulcan mind-lock maneuver, she declares: “So, everything that I have been told my whole life is just a big fat lie? Do you know how that feels?” Graeme, trying to pacify her, responds, “Look. Just because your truth isn’t the true truth doesn’t mean there is no truth.” Here is the first theme: subjective truths.

Graeme implies that everyone has some truths that they cling to, but that most of them are not true truths. But here is an oxymoron. A truth is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition or principle, something that conforms with fact or reality. If it does not, then it is not a truth. To say you have a true truth is to be redundant. To say that your truth isn’t truth is to deny your truth. It is no longer truth. Some may say it is true to you (or to the person holding it) but that it is not objective truth; some might refer to it as subjective truth but in reality it is no truth. Truth is truth and is so for all.

However, Graeme is correct in that “subjective truth” does not preclude actual objective truth. All truth is fundamentally grounded in the Truth, Jesus Christ, who said: “I am the way, the truth and the life” (Jn. 14:6). Unlike Pontius Pilate, who sneered, “What is truth?” (Jn. 18:38), at Jesus, followers of Jesus hold firmly to the fact that there is truth to be found, both in physical nature and in the spiritual realm. The Bible affirms that “God is truthful” (Jn. 3:33) and he does not lie (Tit. 1:2). Without such truth, there is no grounds for faith.

And this gets to the second and larger theme of the film: destroying a person’s faith. In the film, Paul comes along, an alien from a distant planet who can show Ruth that the origins of the universe are other than outlined in the Bible. Moreover, he shatters her belief in a young earth and destroys her faith in God. Once this has happened, Ruth is ready to give up all her “religious don’ts” and embark on a liberated crusade of swearing, drinking and sex. Like Paul said in 1 Cor. 15: 1-20, if the gospel is not true and Christ was not raised from the dead, then “we are of all people most to be pitied” and “If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:32) But even Paul refutes such nonsense and further affirms the resurrection.

So, is there one fact that could destroy a believer’s faith, the so called straw that could break the Christian camel’s back? Is our faith so fragile that we must walk on egg-shells lest we fall and come crashing down like Humpty Dumpty? No! Faith must be and indeed is stronger than that. Atheists have tried for centuries to deny and refute the Christian faith and it has only become stronger. Even when science proved that the earth was older than the 4000 years that literalists accept, theologians responded with new understandings of creation, such as the day-age theory.

Should an alien come along and tell us that our beliefs of creation are wrong, that would not refute God. He is and he exists outside of this physical universe (Heb. 11:6). We may need to revise our theories, but we would not discard our true deity. One day we will meet God. As the apostle Paul (not the alien Paul) says, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). Until then, “let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.” (Heb. 4:14)

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

The Debt -- truth and lies, failure and success

2011-09-16T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: John Madden, 2011. (R)

Hollywood remakes of foreign films often fail, forcing the new version into standard tropes that Western audiences want. The Debt, a remake of a 2007 Israeli film (from the book of the same name), refuses to do this, and seems more like a foreign thriller or a throw-back to the espionage movies of the cold-war era. In this sense, it is a gripping spy film that engages through characters and suspense, with less action than the typical film in this genre.

It opens in 1997 with two retired spies Rachel (Helen Mirren, Red) and Stephan (Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom), coming together for the publication of their daughter’s book about their exploits thirty years earlier. Now divorced, they are the stars at the book launching party. But when the third member of their team, David (Ciaran Hinds, Margot at the Wedding), commits suicide, these two are forced to consider the debt they owe him, each other, and their country.

Flashing back to 1966, the three characters are shown when as strangers they come together in East Berlin. These three, Rachel (Jessica Chastain, The Tree of Life), Stephan (Marton Csokas) and David (Sam Worthington, Avatar) are undercover agents of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organization. They have been sent to locate and capture Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen), the infamous “Surgeon of Birkenau” who performed experiments on thousands of Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in WW2. He is now living in East Germany and working as a doctor. Rachel is the bait to trap him, and they have a clever Mission Impossible-type plan to whisk him away to Israel where he will face public trial.

The film moves back and forth in time showing the stress of both situations. It is in the dingy Berlin apartment of the 60s, though, where the real tension is apparent. Wiling away the hours until the mission can be green-lit, the team are locked together in a trio of romantic interests, which themselves play into the people they become. But when the fateful day arrives, things go horribly wrong and they are forced to make a life-changing decision: do they tell the truth and show their country a failure or do they lie and appear successful. Moreover, this decision is centered in the Israeli public eye and with their choice they become venerated heroes.

The casting of the two sets of actors to play the three main characters is spot on, and all bring their A-games to the roles. Chastain shows both vulnerability as well as toughness as a rookie agent in the middle of it all. The older actors portray the cynicism and hollowness that a life of deceit brings. But Christenson may be the best as a villain who seems nothing more than an old man, but is clearly as evil as they come. His sly ability to weasel his way into the psyche of his captors communicates how he could so callously carve up and kill living beings two decades before this. He is reminiscent of the cannibal Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs.

The Debt makes us ponder which we would choose if we could pick truth and failure or deceit and success. Would we sell our soul for fame and fortune? Many would. These three did. But perhaps it was more than that. They did it for patriotic reasons. Regardless, such a fundamental choice lays bare our inner character. Will we compromise our integrity in this way? We need to remember what the Chroniclist says: “I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity” (1 Chron. 29:17). If we seek the pleasure of God (rather than men) we will hold on to our integrity regardless of the personal cost.

Of course, the weight of peer pressure can exacerbate the pressure and force us into a decision we may regret. When the three weigh their decision, one character is clear on the decision and he brow-beats the others in turn until they agree with him. When others are pressuring us to join their position it takes a person of conviction and character to stand firm. The easy way out is to cave in. The apostle Paul speaks to this when he says to the Galatians, “Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). It is the devil who is ultimately trying to persuade us to lie and sin, and Peter points this out: “Resist him, standing firm in the faith” (1 Pet. 5:9). It is by holding firm to the faith we have in Jesus that we can resist the devil and his temptation (Jas. 4:7).

Like 2009's The Invention of Lying, the main of the theme of the film lies in the effects of the lie. Whereas that earlier film was a comedy, this is a drama and takes seriously the implications of lying. The consequences of the deceit take a terrible toll. Over the ensuing years, the inner character of the three Israelis crumbles. David cannot face the students he lies to as he retells “the story” of their heroic act. He departs searching for a way to redeem himself. Stephan resorts to living the life of a lying politician, wearing his lies like a mask. Rachel takes to smoking rather than drink. It is inevitable that the truth will come out one way or another. And when it seems about to, it forces them to take drastic action to repay their debt.

The truth will come out. It may be in this life, when we are least ready. In such a case it may result in embarrassment, imprisonment or worse. But, as Jesus once said, the truth in this life ultimately will set us free (Jn. 8:32). We will be free from having to wear a mask and hide our inner person from our family and friends. If it does not emerge in this life and we go to the grave with our dark secret, the truth will still come out. God “sees what is done in secret” (Matt. 6:4) and he “will repay each person according to what they have done” (Rom. 2:6). We all face a judgment before the living God and he will expose these dark secrets. Better to get them out now and be free living in truth than to harbor the secrets and let them haunt us in this life and pay for them in the life to come.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

The Invention of Lying -- truth, lies and parody of religion

2011-09-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson, 2009. (PG-13)

Have you ever lied? Of course you have! If you answered no, you are lying right there. But what would the world be like if we never lied, if we always told the truth, however uncomfortable that truth might be? That is the intriguing premise behind this film. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really answer the questions it poses and tends to unravel into predictable “can boy win girl” by the end.

Writer-director Ricky Gervais, the British comic, stars as Mark Belliston, a screenwriter. But in this world, people only tell the truth and have little self-control so blurt out embarrassing and potentially hurtful facts. No one lies. No one has ever heard of the concept of lying. So, there is no fiction. Films focus on a narrator reading history to a rapt audience.

When he goes out on a date with Anna (Jennifer Garner), she tells him: “You’re overweight, you have a pug nose, and no job. You’re not good enough for me.” Honesty, if blatant superficiality. Her focus is on the genetic matching, to ensure optimal off-spring. But is she correct in thinking that the exterior looks define the person? Obviously not. Think about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. They are not the best looking dudes in the world, but obviously are supremely successful in their chosen fields. Genetically, they have something very positive to contribute to their wives and kids. Even Jesus pointed to this issue when he told his opponents: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean” (Matt. 23:27).

When we meet Mark his life is falling apart. With the 1300s, which contains the black plague, as his century for writing scripts he has nothing to work with. He is about to be fired. He has too little money to pay his rent, so is about to be evicted. His potential girlfriend Anna does not want a second date. So when he goes to the bank to withdraw all his remaining money and the teller asks how much, the light bulb goes on and he tells the world’s first lie. Of course, since everyone tells the truth the teller believes him even if it disagrees with the computer record of his bank balance. Mark has discovered the “power” of the lie. From here he goes out telling other lies, lies that encourage people in hopeless situations.

In telling these lies, the film depicts Mark bringing color and hope to a dull and dreary world. It’s as though the world was waiting for this first lie so it could come alive. But the truth is that devil is “the father of lies” (Jn. 6:44), offering the first untruth in this world to our first parents, Adam and Eve (Gen. 3), thereby tempting them to sin. In contrast, Jesus defines himself as “the truth” (Jn. 14:6).

Yet, despite this clear black and white dichotomy between truth and lies, the questions remain: is it ever right to lie? And can a lie prove beneficial to others? The writer of Proverbs says in answer to these, “The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy” (Prov. 12:22) and “A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin” (Prov. 26:28). And yet Moses recounts the story of the Israelite midwives who, if not actually lying, told half-truths to the Pharoah to save the lives of Israelite babies (Exod. 1:19). There may be times when a half-truth or even a lie might be necessary to prevent a worse sin. Consider, for example, the lies told by the resistance members who harbored Jews like Corrie Ten Boom during the Second World War. In those cases, the lies did prove beneficial in the near-term to some. Or consider a simple question like, “How does this dress look?” If it is totally ugly, telling the truth directly might be too blunt and hurtful. In such cases, it might be better to evade or avoid, but not lie. If we must tell the truth, we should do it with love (Eph. 4:15).

Once Mark has begun telling these little lies to “help” people, he tells a big one. Seeing his mother on her death-bed frightened of the immediate future of an “eternity of nothingness,” he tells her: “You will go to your favorite place in the whole world. Everyone you love will be there. You’ll dance – run and dance. There’s no pain.” He is offering her fictitious hope. Once others hear this, they flock to this new “prophet” who can receive messages from the “man in the sky” and they gather outside his home waiting for words from on high. When he eventually jots down his 10 assertions on pizza boxes shaped like stone tablets, the parody of religion is apparent.

Atheist Gervais is clearly suggesting that religion and Christianity in particular is merely a fiction, something that offers hope to people close to death but is nothing more. He seems to be arguing that it is a deceptive crutch for the weak and dying, as I once thought. But he is missing the point.

Christianity is unlike Gervais’ meesage from the “man in the sky”. God initiated the relationship that forms the heart of Christianity. He has reached down, both through prophets, as when he gave the ten commandments on true tablets of stone to Moses (Exod. 20:1-21) and most clearly through Jesus (Heb. 1:1-3). He does not leave us in a hopeless situation, though we find ourselves in such a place due to our own sin. Instead, he became one of us (Phil. 2:5-9) so that he could take our place and our punishment. Christianity truly offers a message of hope, of grace and forgiveness.

And there is heaven, too. The words that Mark tells his mom resonate with echoes of the truth. In heaven, “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). It will be a place of supreme happiness because it is the place where we can finally commune physically with the living God. This message brings hope of a life “with the Lord forever” (1 Thess. 4:17).

More than this, though, when we reach heaven we will finally be in a place where there are no lies, where the truth is prevalent and ever-present. There will be no more sin at all. And this world will not be the harsh and cruel world of Mark Belliston. It will be the wonderful world created by Jesus. And we will enjoy it and him forever without end.

In the film Gervais does not develop his premise to its conclusion. Instead, he brings in a number of famous actors, such as Tina Fey, in cameo roles, most particularly Rob Lowe as Brad Kessler. Brad is handsome and arrogant and the opposite of Mark. He wants Anna and sets up the Mark-Brad-Anna triangle familiar to most romantic comedies. And the ending is palpably obvious though clearly an easy way-out for Gervais.

As simple comedy, The Invention of Lying brings some laughs. As social commentary, it harpoons America’s fixation on looks. As parody of religion it fails convincingly. Lies were invented at the beginning and will be with us until we reach heaven.

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

Bullitt -- car chase, compromise and integrity

2011-09-04T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Peter Yates, 1968. (PG)

Famed for its car chase through the steep streets of San Francisco, Bullitt has a moodily European feel, perhaps due to its English director. Slow, with a sparing script, it relies less on plot and more on character, especially the two main players Detective Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) and politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn).

The movie opens in Chicago, where a man (Pete Ross) barely escapes an attempt on his life. As an accountant for the mob, they want him dead. Chalmers, on the other hand, wants him as a star witness in front of a US Senate subcommittee hearing on organized crime. That hearing occurs on Monday, 48 hours away. Chalmers asks for Bullitt, and his team of two detectives, to provide protection for this Mafia informant over the weekend. Having arrived in San Francisco, Ross is staying at a secret flophouse motel beside the freeway. A milk run assignment, or so it seems until it all goes wrong.

Bullitt assigns one of his men to take the first watch and we wait for the action to occur. During this lull, we see some of the life of Bullitt as he moves around town meeting his live-in artist girlfriend Cathy (Jacqueline Bisset). With a smoky jazz score used quietly, the mood is clearly the late 60s.

During the night, though, two hit men descend on the motel and both Ross and his watcher are shot. Taken to hospital, Bullitt arrives to begin the search for the killers. How did they find Ross? Why was the door not locked? What is Chalmers not telling? Bullitt is a determined cop, all guts not glitter. Unlike Chalmers, Bullitt wants to find the criminals, not necessarily deliver the witness.

Along the way comes the famous car chase involving Bullitt’s 68 Mustang and the killers’ Dodge Charger racing at speeds of over 100 mph through city streets. Although not in the novel upon which this film was based, and not in the original script, it is hard to think of Bullitt without this authentic chase. Using long, extended shots without any background music (the squealing tires and honking horns form their own cacophony), it is perhaps this that won the film its Oscar for best editing.

Despite the excitement of this chase, the movie’s real interest lies in the contrast of the two main characters, both apparently good guys. They are the antithesis of one another, as is evident in Bullitt’s comment, “Look, you work your side of the street, and I’ll work mine.” Chalmers is charming but sleazy, as quick to smile for a voter as he is to threaten someone who may let him down. Full of ambition, he has little in the way of integrity.

A key interchange between the two underscores their differences. Chalmers tells Bullitt, “Come on, now. Don’t be naive, Lieutenant. We both know how careers are made. Integrity is something you sell the public. . . . Frank, we must all compromise.” Bullitt’s response is swift: “You sell whatever you want, but don’t sell it here tonight.”

Integrity forms the moral heartbeat of this movie. Its primary definition is adherence to moral and ethical principles, or soundness of moral character. Chalmers did not have any moral backbone. He was prepared to sacrifice values and lives if it meant he would advance in his career. Although his cause seemed right, his motive was selfish.

Bullitt, on the other hand, was a man who lived his life in the moral sewers of San Francisco chasing the criminal lowlife. Cathy discovers this when she accompanies him to a crime scene. Faced with a realization of who he is, she questions if their relationship can survive such darkness. Bullitt, though, is committed to a cause, a man of integrity who wants to solve crime, not compromise with crime. Relationships are important but integrity is paramount.

Integrity is a key value found in scripture. “I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity,” writes the chronicler (1 Chron. 29:17). Paul tells Titus “in your teaching show integrity (Tit. 2:7). Even the opponents of Jesus recognized him as a man of integrity (Matt. 22:16).

It is perhaps in the life of Job, however, that integrity takes center stage. We all know the story. Satan is given permission by God to test him with loss of possessions, loss of relationships and loss of health. The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason” (Job. 2:3). Toward the end, Job tells his friends, “I will never admit you are in the right; till I die, I will not deny my integrity” (Job. 27:5).

We may end up being confronted with someone like Chalmers, who threatens us and wants us to compromise our beliefs, our values. If this happens, let us stand up to the challenge like Frank Bullitt. Unlike him, though, we do not need to do it on our own. We can trust in the Lord. We can pray with the psalmist, “May integrity and uprightness protect me, because my hope, LORD, is in you” (Psa. 25:21).

Copyright©2011, Martin Baggs

The Running Man -- truth, propaganda and reality TV

2011-08-30T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Paul Michael Glaser, 1987. (R)

Three years after Arnold Schwarzenegger said “I’ll be back” in The Terminator, he says it again here, in this tale of two governors. Arnold and Jesse Ventura, both of whom went on from their storied acting careers to become politicians, appear on opposite sides of the divide. But this is also testament to the quality of this film’s acting. It might be an interesting action flick, but the acting is second rate.

It is 2017 and the world economy has collapsed. America has become a totalitarian society where everything is rigidly controlled by the state and its omnipresent police force. One of these cops is Ben Richards (Schwarzenegger). At the start we see him ordered to massacre an unarmed crowd of civilians. When he refuses, he is arrested and framed for the ensuing slaughter that he tried to prevent. Sent to prison and branded a butcher, he eventually escapes with the help of two fellow prisoners, Laughlin (Yaphet Kotto) and Weiss (Marvin McIntyre), members of the rebellion. But when he encounters Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso), a worker at the central TV network headquarters, she turns him in and he is re-arrested.

Into this mix comes Killian (Richard Dawson), the creator and host of the world’s most popular and successful TV show: “The Running Man.” Heinous criminals are offered the choice of going to prison or being on the show, where they are released into an abandoned part of Los Angeles to be tracked by stalkers, killers who hunt them down to kill them on air.

The premise reminded me some of the hugely popular fictional series, “The Hunger Games,” which itself is being turned into a major motion picture set for release in 2012. In both, people are thrown into an arena and forced to kill or be killed. The governments each of these stories control the elements of the arena and herd the participants into locations where the killing can occur in prime view of the watching public. And the TV forms the media for propaganda.

Indeed, propaganda versus truth is a central element of the film (as it is with “The Hunger Games”). The government controls the TV and news media and hence controls the spin of events. Truth is distorted until it disappears in a web of lies. “What is truth” Pilate once said, to another condemned criminal (Jn. 18:38). But that criminal was Christ and he had earlier unequivocally declared, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn. 14:6). Truth is real, and truth ultimately cannot be concealed forever. It will emerge.

When Ben is sent into the arena, so are his two friends. Moreover, Amber’s desire for truth and justice backfires when the government sees her as an enemy of the state for seeking truth. She is also condemned to the same fate, showing as the three heroes. While a blood-hungry audience watches them, Killian dispatches stalkers, one at a time, to hunt and kill. Football rushing champion Jim Brown plays fireball, whose weapon is a flamethrower. Buzzsaw and Subzero are earlier stalkers, and overseeing them all is retired stalker, Captain Freedom (Jesse Ventura), whose wrestling exploits mirror the actor’s real-life moves.

If anything, though, the film is a strangely prescient parody on TV reality shows. The Running Game is a reality show to the death. Nowadays, reality TV has become the name of the game, from the finding of love (“The Bachelor” / “The Bachelorette”) to the losing of weight (“The Biggest Loser”). People are happier to live life vicariously through watching someone else, a “normal person,” do unscripted things. The concept of seizing life by the horns has been supplanted by the idea of seeing life on the tube. This is not how God designed us. He wants us to live life to the full, and to do so in Jesus Christ (Jn. 10:10). First-hand experience trumps second-hand exposure every time!

Another criticism of modern-day society stems from this. Much of the populace has become dependent on the boob tube. Killian grasps this and tells Ben:

This is television, that's all it is. It has nothing to do with people, it's to do with ratings! For fifty years, we've told them what to eat, what to drink, what to wear... for Christ's sake, Ben, don't you understand? Americans love television. They wean their kids on it. Listen. They love game shows, they love wrestling, they love sports and violence. So what do we do? We give 'em *what they want*! We're number one, Ben, that's all that counts, believe me. I've been in the business for thirty years.

To him, he controls the people and in return is rewarded with ratings that translate into wealth and power for him.

Are we like this? Have we given up our minds to the god of television, allowing it to consume endless hours of our spare time and brainwash our minds? Are we like sheep without a shepherd, sitting lost on our couches until the newscaster or reality show host tells us what to do? We can rise above this. We can take back our lives. We can turn to Jesus and let him wash us with his blood (Rev. 7:14) and give us his mind (1 Cor. 2:16). If we are willing to give up control, better to give it to Christ than Killian. He offers an eternal reward for us, instead of seeking an ephemeral reward for himself.

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Dog Day Afternoon -- planning, pleasing and persons

2011-08-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Sidney Lumet, 1975 (R)

Bank robbery movies generally include masked robbers, gunshots, car chases and rapid action, with greed as the motivation for the heist. Not so with Dog Day Afternoon. Instead, Sidney Lumet (The Verdict) draws a character study of a bank robbery gone awry. And at the center is a character who wants to make people happy! Greed is replaced by a twisted form of altruism.

The actual robbery on which the film is based took place on August 22, 1972 in Brooklyn. John Wojtowicz held up the Chase Manhattan Bank on the corner of East Third Street and Avenue P, along with his partner in crime Salvatore Naturile. Here, the central character has become Sonny Wortzik (Al Pacino, Heat) and his nervous sidekick is Sal (John Cazale, The Deer Hunter). And during the dog days of summer, one hot August afternoon, they enter the bank to steal its money.

When Sonny and Sal enter, along with a third robber, they come in street clothes – no masks or disguises. They have planned no further than the next step or two. When their driver decides he can’t go through with it, they are down to themselves, and the robbery is already in jeopardy. Since it is the end of the bank’s day, the only people present are the manager and a number of female tellers. But when the manager gets an unexpected phone call, Sonny comes to find out that the police have seen him and he is trapped. From then on, police descend on the bank and surround it, laying siege to it, effectively leaving Sonny and Sal with a hostage situation. Outside Det. Sgt Moretti (Charles Durning) takes charge and begins negotiations with Sonny.

The first theme of the film and the robbery is clear – planning, or lack of it. When undertaking a task or project, even one as immoral as a bank robbery, it is critical to plan effectively and mitigate and foreseeable risk. Jesus even talked about this to his disciples: “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?” (Lk. 14:28). Of course, this was in the context of counting the cost of becoming one of his disciples (Lk. 14:33), but the principle remains the same.

As the standoff continues, the tension escalates and the beauty of the film emerges: the depth of character and the quality of acting. Al Pacino delivers another outstanding performance, one that earned him an Oscar nomination, as a complex character driven by a motive we find out late in the film. And John Cazale is totally believable as a robber who is on over his head and is ready to kill to escape. Although the film only netted one Oscar, for best original screenplay, its acting and directing are first-rate. Lumet even allowed some of the scenes to be improvised, including Pacino’s famous cries of “Attica, Attica!” to the watching crowds, referring to the riots in the Attica Prison in 1971 in which 43 people were killed.

Amid the stress, Sonny finds himself acting as facilitator and problem solver, working out how to keep the women happy, when they need to take bathroom breaks or eat, etc. He is constantly complaining that he has to work to solve these problems. He is no vicious and violent thug; he is a man forced to rob for a deeper reason.

Trying to make people happy is a laudable ideal, but one at which people are destined to fail. You can never make everyone happy. It is a failing proposition. There will always be someone who you can’t please. That is why the apostle Paul tells the church at Thessalonika, “We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts” (1 Thess. 2:4) God is the one we should seek to please. As Paul says elsewhere, “If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). We cannot focus solely on making people happy. It will lead us to an early grave brought on by stress and will leave us poor before God.

What makes this film most human, though, is the revelation that Sonny is gay. Despite the occasional homosexual slur, the focus is on Sonny as a person. He might be homosexual, but he is first and foremost a person, with a life and loves. His love life or gender preference may underscore the motives behind his actions but they are not placed in center stage.

Too often we focus on a person who is gay and decry his lifestyle, ignoring his personhood. He is viewed by the church as a sinner who must change. But we forget that we, too, are sinners in need of grace who have to change as well. We can become hypocrites as we look down on those whose sins are “worse than ours.” But the truth is we all stand guilty before God. Just as God condemns homosexuality (Rom. 1:27), so does he condemn heterosexual adultery (Exod. 20:14) and pre-marital sex (Gal. 5:19). The litany of sins of which most of us have committed one time or another goes on and on: “greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” (Mark 7:22), to name but a few. We need to understand that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), whether homo or hetero sexual. The solution for us all is grace, for we ”are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3;24). This is something we must choose to receive, by following Jesus Christ: “for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

In these dog days of our own summer, let’s focus on planning, helping people, and treating others with respect, regardless of their color, sexual preference or religious affiliation.

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Dirty Pretty Things -- illegal activities and illegal immigrants

2011-08-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Stephen Frears, 2002. (R)

In the center of London sits the famous luxury Savoy Hotel off the Strand. Nearby are the seedier and unknown hotels. The fictitious Baltic Hotel is one of these. This West London hotel caters to the cheaper tourist. But it is here that illegal activity and illegal immigrants come together. Prostitution, drug dealing and worse, dirty things take place amongst the pretty chambermaids: dirty pretty things.

Stephen Frears (The Queen) filled this independent film with relatively unknown actors, perhaps underscoring the fact that the main characters, illegals, are unknown. The two leads are played by Audrey Toutou (Amelie), in her first English speaking role, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who has gone on to various Hollywood movies, including American Gangster and Salt. Sergi Lopez is the antagonist, though, and he is known to European film buffs, playing the villain in films like With a Friend Like Harry and Pan’s Labyrinth.

Okwe (Ejiofor) and Senay (Toutou) both work in the hotel. Okwe is the night desk clerk while Senay is a daytime chambermaid. When she arrives their intersection allows her to surreptitiously pass off her apartment key to him. Unknown to the others, he is sharing her flat, living on her sofa. Both being illegals, their pay is limited and they are barely able to survive even on that.

To make ends meet, Okwe does double duty as a taxi driver by day, hotel receptionist by night, catching a nap on Senay’s couch. To stay awake, he chews weed, or some other form of drug. Nigerian by birth, his past remains secret for much of the film, although it is clear he is a trained doctor, now forced to work menial jobs in London. Senay, on the other hand, is a Turkish muslim refugee seeking asylum. Her status precludes her from gainful employment and so she has to avoid and evade the brutish police who are after her.

When Okwe finds a human heart in the toilet of a hotel room one night, he is faced with a dilemma. Taking this to the hotel supervisor, Sneaky Juan (Lopez), Okwe wants to see justice done and the police called. But Juan wants nothing of the sort. Too many dirty things take place under his watchful eye. And as Okwe begins to investigate on his own, he begins to turn over rocks revealing the underbelly of London society where illegals are exploited.

Confronted, Juan explains: “I make people happy.” He is a middle man and both those upstream and downstream seem to appreciate what he is doing. Yet, it is both illegal and immoral. Without any rights and without the ability to turn to the law, the illegal immigrants resort to such illegal activities to survive. Lack of options ensures their ongoing exploitation.

Injustice, oppression and exploitation of foreigners form a central theme of the Torah, the Israelite’s Bible. Moses wrote in Exodus 22:21: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” Further, “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.” (Lev. 19:33). And: “You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’” (Lev. 24:22) The reason for these commands is explained by Moses in Deuteronomy (10:17-19): “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners.” Justice and mercy for the illegals (and the legals) is based on the very nature and character of God himself.

Juan eventually forces Okwe to make a tough choice: one path will have him break the law but help Senay, the other will keep the law (and leave his conscience clear) but will harm Senay. Which will he choose? For many illegals, morality is not as black and white as it is for Okwe. Life offers many shades of gray morality.

Dirty Pretty Things takes some time to establish characters. Once the heart is found, the film finds its heart and picks up pace. As the mystery unfolds, the secrets of the characters are slowly revealed, along with some sweet plot twists, until it reaches a satisfactory conclusion.

The underlying message of the film is highlighted in a scene where Okwe, Senay and Juliette (Sophie Okonedo), a prostitute, confront a sleazy businessman. The man asks them, “How come I’ve never seen you people before?” Okwe answers, somewhat defiantly, “Because we are the people you do not see. We are the ones who drive your cabs. We clean your rooms. And [do sexual acts for you]” How often do we see these invisible people? Are our eyes open to those who serve in menial positions? If we are not, now is the time to start seeing.

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Unknown -- memories and identities

2011-08-13T19:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra, 2011. (PG-13)

A man wakes up to find out he has no identification and no proof of identity. Clearly he is an American overseas. Is he an international assassin, like Jason Bourne? No, this is not the Bourne Identity, though the film draws parallels to that action adventure “classic”. Rather, he is Dr. Martin Harris, although to others he is simply unknown. Though the premise is somewhat clichéd, the film is surprisingly good, with action aplenty and some unexpected twists.

The film opens with Martin (Liam Neeson, Taken) and his wife Elizabeth (January Jones, X-Men: First Class) flying to Berlin. He is a bio-technology researcher presenting a paper at an international conference. When they arrive at their hotel, he realizes he has left his briefcase at the airport and promptly leaves her at check-in to return to the airport. On the way back to the hotel, a freak accident causes the cab to crash through a bridge and plummet into the icy waters of the river below. The cab driver, Gina (Diane Kruger, National Treasure 2), saves him from drowning but flees the scene as she is an illegal. Martin, comatose, is taken to hospital, where he regains consciousness four days later. Without a passport or wallet he is an unknown. But he remembers vaguely his name and his wife.

Fearing for his wife, Martin leaves the hospital and returns to the hotel. But without documentation he cannot get a room key. Seeing Elizabeth, he persuades security to let him talk to her. When she denies knowing him, his frustration grows. When another Dr. Martin Harris (Aidan Quinn) joins her and she acknowledges this man as her husband, Martin’s perplexity escalates and his sanity is called into question. Is he a madman? Does he know her? Why does she deny knowing him if his memory is accurate?

With no one else to turn to, he seeks out Gina. But a mysterious man tracks him with deadly intent. Driven from her apartment, Gina and Martin must unravel the enigma of Martin’s identity if they want to stay alive and elude their pursuers.

Before dealing with the main themes of the film, it is worth mentioning the subtheme of illegal immigrants. Gina is one and has no rights. So, when she loses her job as a cabbie she is powerless, much like Martin. Yet, even illegals should not face oppression and injustice. As the prophet Malachi declared, speaking for the Lord, “I will be quick to testify against . . . those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice” (Mal. 3:5).

Ultimately, though, it is the questions of identity that Unknown raises, without answering any of them. How do we prove who we are? When questioned, we usually turn to documentation first. We show our driver’s license or our passport. Sometimes we go back further to birth certificates, but without these we are left unknown and powerless. And, of course, these can be counterfeited so on their own they may not completely establish a person’s identity.

Better perhaps is to turn to those who know us, our spouses, our colleagues and friends. They can vouch for us. They are witnesses to who we are. But if they betray us, denying knowing who we are, we have almost no legal recourse. We simply cannot prove who we are. To the authorities, we sound confused even mad, just like Dr. Harris.

With nothing else left, we turn inwards, to our memories, to establish some level of anchor-hold. But if these become vague, perhaps due to temporary amnesia, they may not match reality and then we must listen to what we are told. Harris tells his medical doctor, “Do you know what it feels like to become insane, doctor? It’s like a war between being told who you are and knowing who you are.”

Are we who we are told we are? Or are we who we know we are? Which can we trust if they disagree?

Although our identity clearly rises above memory, memory contributes to making our lives meaningful. When a disease like Alzheimer’s hits we begin to lose touch with our past. Our memory fails and we become erased blackboards. Even worse is when those around us forget us as well. In the book of Job, one of his counselors refers to the fate of the wicked: “The memory of him perishes from the earth; he has no name in the land.” (Job. 18:17). King David echoed this in Psalm 9: “Endless ruin has overtaken my enemies, you have uprooted their cities; even the memory of them has perished.” Moreover, the psalmist tells us the greatest thing we can do for God: “I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever” (Psa. 45:17).

Without documents, witnesses or memory we are stranded in a world that is cold and heartless. Yet there is one who will stand up for us. God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Heb. 13:5). If we put our trust in him, all else may fail yet we will remain safe and secure. To the world we may be unknown, but we are known to Jesus (Jn. 10:28).

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 --facing death and self-sacrifice

2011-08-06T07:00:00.000-07:00

Direcor: David Yates, 2011. (PG-13)

Ten years and 8 films later, the Harry Potter movie phenomenon comes to an end with the second half of The Deathly Hallows (book 7). And what a way to end the series: with this thrilling, action packed tense adventure. It is a satisfying conclusion even if the plot points are known from the book.

Even before the opening credits, the film is up and running, beginning exactly where part 1 left off (see review of part 1 here): revisiting the scene where Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) gets the most powerful Elder Wand from Dumbledore’s tomb. From there, it moves to the beach in the aftermath of Dobby’s death where Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), Hermione (Emma Watson) and several friends are mourning and burying the freed house elf. When the students at Hogwarts are shown being marched through the courtyard guarded by hovering dementors, it is clear the battle lines have been drawn. This is a classic good vs. evil culmination where familiar faces will face death, even some dying.

Part 1 of The Deathly Hallows had the famous trio searching for Voldermort’s horcruxes. The Dark Lord had used these to store portions of his soul in his attempt to find immortality. Three are left to be found in this film. Unlike the earlier movie, this one starts frantically and carries the pace throughout as the film spans a mere couple of days. It is non-stop action.

The film communicates this breathless nature even while adding some levity. An early scene has Hermione transfiguring into Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) via polyjuice potion to access her vault at Gringotts. There we experience a literal roller-coaster ride as the friends descend only to find their way barred by a dragon. Here is an actual dungeon and dragon!

As the trio escape, the movie moves to Hogwarts for the final two acts. The last stand of good against evil occurs where the wizardry all began. Here the final battle takes place, with Voldemort’s minions, numbering thousands, taking on the vastly outnumbered and less mature students and teachers. There is more than a nod to the climactic battles in The Return of the King, the film that brought The Lord of the Rings trilogy to a close.

Despite the pace, director Yates, who himself has matured in his handling of the last four films in this series, finds time to bring some emotional revelations and some true heart. In particular, the death of Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the perennial nasty prof and Judas-figure, delivers an unexpected disclosure (unless you’ve read the book).

But when all is said and done, this film is about the final confrontation between Harry Potter, the boy who lived, and Lord Voldemort, he who shall not be named. And the final duel does not disappoint. Rather, it underscores the true nature of these characters. It also reiterates the themes that have been present throughout the whole series: self-sacrifice, death, good vs evil.

During this confrontation Voldemort egotistically shouts, “Only I can live . . . forever!” His desire is apparent: power and immortality. Drunk on these, he seeks to subvert anyone and anything that stands in his way. In contrast, Harry stands as the humble Christ-figure who seeks nothing for himself.

Real-life has its own Dark Lord: Satan. He is alive and active on planet earth (1 Pet. 5:8), seeking to usurp God’s throne and domination (Isa. 14;13). He wants to live forever. But the end of the story has been written, and he does not attain eternal life. He is destined for the death in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). In contrast, all who follow Jesus will live forever in heaven with their Savior (Rev. 21).

Virtually all the characters come face to face with death here. Indeed, author J.K. Rowling has said that the series is fundamentally about how we respond to death. There are two main camps. The first are those that fear death and do anything to avoid it. Many death-eaters fall into this category. They don’t want to face the wrath of the Dark Lord and so submit to him. In our world, many people fear death and so avoid it by ignoring it; seemingly taking an ostrich approach, they put their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge death as if this will keep this spectre at bay. Then there are those who realize that there are values and goals that trump death. Harry and his friends will fight evil until the end, even if it means dying in the process. There are some in real life who adopt this philosophy. Usually they understand that death in this life is not the end; there is a life to come, whose eternal nature makes this life seem like a mere breath (Isa. 40:23-24), a short introduction to an epic adventure in the next life.

And then there is Harry. Having seen his friends face death and some die, he declares, “I never wanted any of you to die for me.” He is willing to face death himself, but does not want to put his comrades in danger. Motivated by a desire to save, he puts himself in the position of embracing the fullness of Voldermort’s power. What a display of love! Indeed, this illustrates Jesus’ point to his disciples: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn. 15:13).

At its heart this film and its predecessors emphasize the victory of love and self-sacrifice. Earlier installments played on the love of Harry’s mother that saved him and endowed him with his power and connection to Voldermort. But here it is Harry’s love and actual self-sacrifice that ultimately wins the day.

Here is Harry as a Christ-figure. Jesus Christ humbled himself from a position of glory and greatness to become human (Phil. 2:6-7). And in his earthly life and especially death, he gave himself for others (Gal. 1:4). Sinless (Heb. 4:15), the Savior carried our sin to the cross that crucified him (1 Pet. 2:24). And when Satan thought he had won the battle, with Jesus buried in a dark tomb, God raised him from the dead (Acts 2:24). Jesus experienced victory over death itself and eventually over Satan. Today, Jesus sits at the right hand of God (Mk. 16:19), orchestrating the events of history, steering it towards his eventual confrontation with Satan which will bring history to a close (Rev. 20).

If you have never read one of the Harry Potter books or seen any of the other films, you should definitely skip this one. The backstory is assumed. But if you’re a Potter fan, this is the best film yet!

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Mao's Last Dancer -- dancing and cultural comparisons

2011-08-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Bruce Beresford, 2009. (PG)

Mao’s Last Dancer juxtaposes the story of dancer Li Cunxin with a comparison of cultures: modern China and America. While the dancing works, the cultural criticism falls flat.

The film is based on the autobiography of Li, who at age 11 was taken from his parents in a poor village in rural China to be sent to Beijing to train with China’s pre-eminent ballet school. What is an honor for his parents is a heartbreak for Li, as he is parted from friends and family to essentially live in a community of dancers.

As he grows and develops, Li appears the only dancer who can think and dance apart from the rest of the communist class. When an American delegation from Texas comes to Beijing as part of a cultural exchange, it is Li whose chemistry with an Australian dancer catches the eye of the director Ben Stevenson (Bruce Greenwood).

Stevenson pulls strings to get the adult Li (Chi Cao) an opportunity to visit America to dance with the Houston Ballet company. There Li experiences American culture and American women, falling for one of the dancers.

Director Beresford has established himself with the Oscar-winner Driving Miss Daisy, but here resorts to a by-the-numbers tear-jerker more fitting to the Hallmark Movie of the week. Greenwood is the principal name actor and does a fitting job as the smarmy and self-absorbed dance director. Chi Cao does lovely work in his ballet performances.

Where the film fails is in its cultural comparisons. It paints a black and white picture that seems simplistic at best. The early portrait of China with the young Li shows a peasant experience dominated by Mao TseTung whose picture hangs above the classroom. But America is shown as a seductive place, full of consumerism and sexuality. The endless clothes given to Li by Stevenson appear almost obscene compared to the simple uniforms of his parents. The easy sex available in nightclubs (this is the late seventies of disco dancing) contrasts with the difficult lifestyle of his family.

The evils of the Chinese governmental system juxtapose against the evils of American society. Which is worse? Authoritarian control or libertarian freedom? Both have their own problems but freedom at least allows people to make their own decision. With this comes accountability. The Chinese police may have been able to routinely arrest and punish people for the “crimes” of others, such as their children, but the American judicial system makes people responsible for their own actions, a biblical concept.

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

The Lincoln Lawyer -- innocence, injustice and pure evil

2011-07-31T19:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Brad Furman, 2011. (R)

Despite the American judicial concept of “innocent until proven guilty” we often see a person arrested for a heinous crime and assume he or she is guilty. The state has built a case and arrested the person with due cause. Our allegiance tends to fall with the state, even though they have the burden of proof. The defense attorney is either a slick shyster or filthy rich from defending the wealthy criminals. The Lincoln Lawyer plays off this cliche while dealing with themes of innocence, injustice and evil.

Mick Haller (Matthew McConaughey) is the Lincoln lawyer. He conducts his business out of the back of his Lincoln Town Car while being driven from client to client by Earl his driver. He epitomizes sleazy, defending bikers and prostitutes who he knows are guilty. He works the system, and is not above greasy a few palms to get the “Not Guilty” verdict to match his car license plate.

When Louis Rollet (Ryan Phillipe), a 30-something realtor, is accused of raping a prostitute, he asks Haller to defend him. Mick’s meal ticket has arrived, and he promptly starts laying out the expense account. Rollet claims he is being set up, and Mick sends his trusty investigator Frank Levin (William H. Macy) to dig up the dirt. But he digs up more than he wants and suddenly nothing is as it seems.

The Lincoln Lawyer is based on the book by Michael Connelly. A film cannot capture the details of a 400 page novel, and this one is no exception. There is little to explain why Haller uses the Lincoln. His backstory is not described, except for his simmering relationship with his ex-wife Maggie “McFierce” McPherson (Marisa Tomei). She is one of the LA District Attorneys, on the opposite side of the fence from him. Hence the “ex” in their relationship. But their daughter keeps them on speaking terms.

There are twists and turns aplenty in this taut crisp thriller. The flashbacks tend to be a little confusing at times, but the attentive viewer will remain engaged. McConaughey brings his A-game, showing he is more than just a pretty face. His cynical front slowly melts as the truth confronts him. Phillippe is perfect as the innocent-with-an-attitude rich kid who wants to be put on the stand to get his story told. Tomei doesn’t have a lot to do except encourage Mick, an odd concept from a DA to a defense attorney.

The ethical themes emerge when Mick gets one-on-one with Roulet. He senses injustice. Injustice is the violation of the rights of others. But the injustice seems to be against an earlier client. And the attorney-client privilege, which prevents him from disclosing anything Roulet tells him, puts him into a precarious position.

The dilemma here is how a person avoids injustice if justice (or the law) itself disallows that very same person from seeking redress. It would be wrong to break the law but by not breaking the law the law itself has been broken. It is a paradox, and the beauty of the film is how Mick works this out. The secret is to find the limits of the law and use them, while staying safely within the confines.

Moreover, Mick’s character growth is evident. Initially, he is happy to work a little subtle bribery. But by the end he sees the cost of injustice. He almost exemplifies the words of Habbakuk to God (Hab. 1:3): “Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.” He struggles to right the wrongdoing, and in so doing finds his own plumb line reset correctly.

At one point Mick confesses his lifelong fear, of representing someone truly innocent. He shielded his conscience by assuming that all his clients were guilty. But, he says, “You know what I used to be afraid of? That I wouldn’t recognize innocence. Not guilty or not-guilty. But pure innocence. That it’d be standing in front of me and I wouldn’t know it. You know what I am afraid of now? Pure evil?” He had been forced to face his fears and came away with a view of evil.

Evil resides in the world. Evil lies inside all of us (Jer. 17:9). Most of us restrain it for the most part, covering our sinful heart with a sugar candy coating. But some allow the purest form of evil to emerge in their psychopathic practices and are proud of it. Theirs is close to demonic. Such a personality scared Mick and it should scare us, too.

As the Lincoln Lawyer reaches its climax, we hope beyond hope that justice will prevail. In Hollywood it usually does. In life it often seems to be thwarted. Yet when we realize that God is the true Judge (Psa. 75:7), we also understand that he judges in his time: “with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery” (2 Chron. 19:7). We just may have to wait to the other side of eternity for the full impact of justice to be realized. Meanwhile, with a defense attorney like Jesus Christ our guilt can be turned into a not-guilty verdict. As the apostle John said, “we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2).

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Father of the Bride -- cost of a wedding, cost of a marriage

2011-07-13T19:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Charles Shyer, 1991. (PG)

The camera pans across a landscape of scattered confetti, dirty cake plates, discarded champagne flutes and empty chairs. A tuxedo-clad man, George Banks (Steve Martin) is sitting alone, tiredly massaging his feet. Looking into the camera, he gives this introduction: "I used to think a wedding was a simple affair. Boy and girl meet, they fall in love, he buys a ring, she buys a dress, they say I do. I was wrong. That's getting married. A wedding is an entirely different proposition. I know. I've just been through one." The movie starts, thus, at the end, with the wedding over. But with this prolog the difference between a wedding and a marriage is identified and the two themes of the film subtly emerge: the cost of a wedding and the cost of marriage (at least from the father’s perspective).

George is a well-to-do middle-class businessman living in California, owning a successful athletic shoe company. Married to Nina (Diane Keaton), they have two children, young Matty (Kieran Culkin) and 22 year-old Annie (Kimberly Williams). They are epitome of the settled American family. So when Annie comes home from a semester in Rome and breaks the news that she is getting married to Bryan MacKenzie (George Newbern), George’s idyllic world is disrupted, and the movie plays off this.

Father of the Bride is a remake of a 1950 Spencer Tracy film of the same name. Having not seen the original, I cannot compare the two, but this version is funny, sentimental and often touching. It is more than it seems. The concept screams cliche, but the actors deliver on their comic lines. Steve Martin seems natural in the role of the father, talking to the camera and giving spot-on voice-overs of his thoughts. He makes the film successful. His character offers genuine responses that seem totally realistic.

The film touches on the journey of life and how there are key moments along the way that are the memorable signposts we look back on. A number of early scenes show this, but three stand out. The first relates to the moment when Annie breaks the good news to her family. It is over the first family dinner after she returns. She is radiant with excitement and Nina is overjoyed. George, on the other hand, is stunned, shocked even. He finds reasons why Annie cannot marry. To himself he says, “This was the moment I’d been dreading for the past six months. Well, actually for the past 22 years.”

As a father of a 22 year-old daughter myself, with two other younger girls, I totally relate to this thought. When I first saw this film, over a decade ago, I thought it cute. Now, seeing it again in a different family context, it got me all choked up. That could be me reacting to my daughter’s revelations. George looks over at Annie and sees not an adult woman ready to become a wife, but a 5 year-old girl speaking. He still sees her as his little girl. Our daughters will always be our little girls; but they do grow up. And fathers must accept this as part of life and life’s journey . . . for us and them.

The next key scene occurs moments later, when Bryan arrives. Meeting the fiancé is the second signpost. It heralds permanency. Privately, George has speculated that he might be a middle-aged loser, but Bryan unwittingly addresses this as he presents himself to his future in-laws. Speaking from the heart, he gushes:

I just wanna say that I'm an upstanding citizen. I've never been engaged before. I've never really been in love before. And I think Annie's the greatest person I've ever met. And I can't wait to marry her and one day have children, and grand children. And I'm going to do my best to be supportive of her dreams. She's a very gifted architect. I'm just thrilled that I met her. I love your daughter. The feelings I have for her are never gonna change. I'm here to stay.

To Nina, it is the sweetest, most sincere speech she has ever heard. To George, it is a well-rehearsed suck-up. Of course, this is mostly because George just doesn’t want it to be happening. Life is changing for him, but he is not ready for this. Bryan is inadvertently pointing out that George is getting older and might soon be entering the grand-parenting stage of life. Fathers don’t always want to hear this, especially if their internal self-portrait comes from their younger days.

The third significant sign-post is meeting the in-laws. Here I am referring to George meeting his future son-in-law’s parents. When he and Nina go visit they discover that George’s folks are rich and live in a mansion. Given the opportunity to peek into an open check-book, George succumbs to temptation and gets himself into hot water . . . or at least cold water. The awkwardness of the initial meeting is evident from both sides, each wanting to make a good first impression, even though they don’t have to be best friends. In-laws form an integral part of an adult child’s life. Having good relationships, even workable relationships, will form a solid foundation for the future marriage.

The cost of a marriage from a father’s perspective, then, is the loss of a daughter. George comes to a final realization of this as he is about to give Annie away at the altar:

Who presents this woman? This woman? But she's not a woman. She's just a kid. And she's leaving us. I realized at that moment that I was never going to come home again and see Annie at the top of the stairs. Never going to see her again at our breakfast table in her nightgown and socks. I suddenly realized what was happening. Annie was all grown up and was leaving us, and something inside began to hurt.

Everything worthwhile in this life has a cost. (Even salvation, the most important thing in this earthly life, has a cost, though it is received freely – it cost Jesus his life: 2 Cor. 4:10.) But in a strong and healthy family this cost or loss is offset by the gain of a son-in-law and the beautiful relationship that emerges in the new union. Bryan exemplifies this. He completes Annie, as George finally understands. Babies grow up into children, who mature into adults, who usually marry. This is the way of life. It has been from the beginning: “a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

In the middle of the film, once George has come to accept that a wedding is on the cards, Nina decides to hire a wedding coordinator. And what a coordinator he is: Franck Eggelhoffer (pronounced “Fronk”). Martin Short plays Franck as an unidentifiable European with an unrecognizable accent. But what George cannot discern, Nina and Annie clearly understand. This is symptomatic of the wedding and marriage. And as Franck replaces George in the decision making, George realizes that the wedding is going to cost him a bundle: $250 a head, and that is 20 years ago!

Here is the second theme: the cost of a wedding. The film has a lot of fun with this aspect, but in reality weddings are expensive. Of course, losing dollars is nothing compared to losing a daughter. Yet, fathers tend to control the purse-strings and often hold tight budgets. George does. The humor comes from his attempts at reigning in the expenses while Nina and Annie just want to make a memorable wedding. George’s budget cuts backfire on him though and he ends up acting as traffic controller at the wedding, thereby missing several key moments of the ceremony and celebration.

Obviously, cost is an issue in a wedding. That is why budgets are made. But cost must not curtail memories. George ended up spending a bomb and still missed out on several key memories from the reception. He was too stressed out about cost. Most importantly, weddings are about transition and memories. They are a symbolic cutting of the ties from the parents create a new family. We surround ourselves with family and friends to celebrate but also to remember. Those of us that are married can look back warmly on our wedding day as the starting point of the new chapter of our life’s journey.

Jesus once told his disciples to count the cost before embarking on a project (Lk. 14:28), and this is true for weddings as well as. But rather than looking at what we lose (money or daughters), it is better to look at what we gain: memories and sons. Let’s hope we can learn from George when our time as “father of the bride” comes around!

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Gnomeo and Juliet -- lovers and feuds

2011-07-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Kelly Asbury, 2011. (G)

“Romeo and Juliet” is probably the greatest tragedy of all time, with one of the most famous balcony speeches (“O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?”) Now imagine this as “Gnomeo, Gnomeo” spoken by a ceramic garden gnome in a modern English garden, and you get the gist of this Starz Animation comedy.

I love garden gnomes, probably a peculiarity of my English heritage, and so when I heard this was coming out I had to see it. Moreover, my teenaged daughter wanted to see a family friendly film, so we rented it and were not disappointed. The screenwriters have taken some liberties with the plot, realizing that younger kids might not know the Bard’s tale and might not want such a dark ending. And it works well. Furthermore, with Elton John and his partner David Furnish as Producers, the soundtrack features a number of Elton’s songs, including classics like “Your Song” and “Crocodile Rock”. Elton himself even gets an animated cameo!

The film is set in middle-class Verona Street amidst semi-detached houses, where Miss Montague (voice of Julie Walters) lives at number 2B and Mr. Capula (voice of Richard Wilson) lives at not-2B (nod to Hamlet, another of Shakespeare’s famous tragedies). These two neighbors are at odds with one another, and their houses reflect it being painted blue and red respectively. When the humans are not around, the gnomes come to life (a la Toy Story) to maintain their gardens.

Lady Blueberry rules the blue gnomes while Lord Redbrick leads the red gnomes. Both have a child they care about, each with a strange friend. Gnomeo (voice of James McAvoy, X-Men: First Class) has a blue mushroom while Juliet (voice of Emily Blunt, The Adjustment Bureau) has a talking frog. Of course, the Reds hate the Blues and the Blues hates the Reds. That has been the way of their world for as long as they can remember.

Setting the story in England, director Asbury makes full use of a stellar British voice cast. McAvoy and Blunt are pitch-perfect as the star-crossed lovers. But alongside them are Sir Michael Caine as Lord Redbrick, Dame Maggie Smith as Lady Blueberry, and even Shakespearean thespian Patrick Stewart as the Bard himself. Jason Statham shows up as the macho red villain Tybalt, while rocker Ozzy Osborn voices Fawn. Even American wrestler Hulk Hogan has a cameo, announcing the “terrafirminator” on the internet, a monster lawn-mower.

Speaking of lawn mowers, apart from keeping their gardens spick and span the gnomes enjoy competitive lawn mower races, such as the one where Tybalt challenges Gnomeo.

The story, though, takes off when Gnomeo and Juliet meet one another while on a quest to pluck an orchid. It’s love at first sight, a love that cannot be allowed in the midst of a feud. Yet it needs a little help from Featherstone, a pink flamingo missing one leg and his better half, to fan the flames into a blazing fire.

The heart of the film is the feud between the reds and blues. The feud, fueled by hatred, separates two families of gnomes and two young lovers. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Hate brings on more hate and further violence. Love is the medicine that can absorb hate and dissipate its power. God showed us this on the cross (Rom. 5:8). As Satan poured out his hatred on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the love of God absorbed this like water into a paper towel. And despite the apparent victory when Jesus died, ultimate victory comes through the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:54) to a better life, one characterized by love. Turning the other cheek (Matt. 5:39) is better than killing the other gnome!

When Gnomeo comes to a shattering end, the blues feel a hatred bordering on murder. For them, revenge is the only solution. But with a weapon like the terrafirminator, victory will devolve into mutual assured destruction, that concept from the nuclear-threatened cold war. Neither side will emerge happy victors.

Vengeance is a terrible thing. That is why it should be left in the hands of a God who can control it. “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” he said in Romans 12:19. When we seek to pay back our enemies, we are pouring gasoline onto the fire, escalating the violence. Instead, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). That is the message that we can glean from Gnomeo and Juliet, amidst their tragic devastation.

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

With a Friend Like Harry (Harry un ami qui vous veut du bien) -- sociopathic problem solving

2011-07-06T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Dominik Moll, 2000. (R)

The movie opens with Michel (Laurent Lucas) driving his family in an old car en route to their vacation home. With no air conditioning, the three young girls are hot and cranky, whining and screaming from the back. Up front Claire (Mathilde Seigner, sister of Emmanuelle Seigner, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) is tired and Michel loses it. He pulls off for a break at a highway gas station. It is there, in the men’s rest-room, that he meets Harry (Sergi Lopez).

Harry is everything that Michel is not: well-dressed, hair combed, cool and confident. He drives an air-conditioned BMW, not a beater. Recognizing Michel as an old school-chum from years ago, he greets him warmly. Though Michel cannot remember him, Harry remembers even the smallest of details from their time together. What a coincidence!

When he emerges from the bathroom, Harry introduces his beautiful but brainless fiancée Plum (Sophie Guillemin) to Michel and his family. Though they decline Harry’s invitation to dinner, Harry wheedles an invitation to Michel’s farmhouse for a drink. There, he recites from memory an old poem that Michel wrote for his school newspaper and has subsequently forgotten. Michel’s dormant literary talent is news to Claire, and she wants to hear more.

This French film layers on suspense slowly and carefully, mixing dark humor with tantalizing intrigue. We know something is up; Harry is too good to be true. He manipulates his way into Michel’s vacation home but he is creepy, with his midnight wanderings and his strange rituals.

Harry is a self-declared problem-solver. He is quick and decisive in taking action when he sees a need, offering concrete and permanent fixes.

Problem-solving is clearly a good thing, a skill worth obtaining. Far better to dispatch a dilemma than to whine and pout over it. In the Old Testament, Daniel was looked on as a wise man because, “I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems” (Dan. 5:16). But the solution must match the problem, and not create further problems of their own; else we are simply shifting the issue, jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Therein lies the difference between a wise man (like Daniel) and simply a man of action (like Harry).

When Harry begins to offer advice to Michel, related to his writing and his relatives, we begin to see a motive underlying his manner. Yet this motive is never really fleshed out. We don’t get to see beneath Harry’s charming exterior to his inner soul. We just see a well-to-do and wealthy sociopath who seems socially normal.

Early on, he buys Claire a new car, an air-conditioned SUV to replace their car that has broken down. When she complains and refuses, he points out that he has money and this is simply his way of solving their problem and removing another distraction from Michel. At the end of the film, we see Michel driving home in this vehicle. Claire is asleep, as are their girls in the back, cool and comfortable. Even Michel’s hair seems tidier and in place. He has the trace of a smile on his lips, and faintly resembles Harry. Michel has solved his problem with Harry in a way worthy of the man himself.

The film leaves us with this image, forcing us to reflect on how Harry-like Michel has become. It suggests we all have a trace of Harry in us. Biblically, the truth is we all have a sinful nature that is characterized by selfishness and separation from God (Isa. 59:2). We may solve problems but too often we do so in ways that move us further from the Lord. Only when we realize our deepest problem is our very sin nature (Eph. 2:1) and look to him for a solution can we move forward with a smile. We can never come to God until our sins have been dealt with, and this only through Jesus (Rom. 3:24-25). With a friend like Harry we will only get ourselves deeper and deeper in trouble. With a friend like Jesus (Jn. 15:14), we can find true escape! Which would you rather have?

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

The Tree of Life -- way of nature, way of grace

2011-07-02T19:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Terence Malick, 2011. (PG-13)

Films today are often formulaic and superficial, entertaining perhaps but lightweight and forgettable. Few aspire to become works of art. Rare is the movie that can actually be called art. Terence Malick’s The Tree of Life is that rare film. Like an impressionist painting, it needs to be savored and studied. Critics have used grandiose terms to describe it, such as awe-inspiring, a masterpiece, Malick’s magnum opus, epic; yet others have called it ponderous, pretentious, slow and boring. Clearly, it is not a middle of the road film. Rather, it is a slow almost philosophical-theological meditation on human life and mankind’s place in the universe.

With such monumental themes, the film needs a grand scale. And Malick delivers this. Although he tells the story of a mid-20th century Texas family, he bookends the plot, what there is of it, between an almost wordless segment showing the origins of the universe up to the dinosaurs and a similar segment showing the end of the universe. One critic sees the film as a symphony, with these segments as movements, illustrating the progressive structure and nature of life. Certainly, the expansive sweeping montage of the construction and deconstruction of the heavens is humbling. In a way, it brings to mind the opening of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Unlike most American directors, Malick is non-prolific. Since his first feature in 1973 (Badlands), he has directed only four other films (Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The New World, and The Tree of Life) in the intervening 38 years. That’s one film every 7.5 years! Yet each has the distinctive Malick approach, characterized by long shots of nature, views of trees (including a gargantuan 65,000 pound live-oak featured as the titular tree here), upward glances towards the heavens, vivid images rather than extensive dialog, and elliptical editing. All of these are present here. Indeed, the dialog is virtually non-existent, depending more on short softly whispered voice-over sentences to add meaning to the images on screen.

The main story is centered on the O’Brien family. Father (Brad Pitt, Inglourious Basterds) and Mother (Jessica Chastain) have three boys, with Jack as the oldest. The film moves in a fragmentary, almost narrative-free fashion between this family in the 1950s and Jack as a grown man (Sean Penn, Fair Game) today, focusing on his journey through life. The innocence of his youth is impacted by two major factors: the loss of one brother and the difficult relationship with his father.

The younger Jack, played fabulously by Hunter McCracken, is caught between two opposing views on life. His mother comments, “There are two ways through life: the way of nature, and the way of Grace. You have to choose which one you’ll follow.” Mother represents grace and father represents nature, and this is played out in front of Jack in his daily routine, from how they rouse him from bed (one playfully with ice cubes, the other by swiftly pulling the sheets back) to how they expect him to react at dinner.

The way of grace is the way of God. Mother whispers, “Grace doesn’t try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries.” How reminiscent this is of the great love chapter in 1 Corinthians:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Cor. 13:4-6)

Despite veering towards caricature, Mother characterizes mothers everywhere, whose love is evident in their familial relationships. The way of grace is the way of self-giving, of loving as Christ loves (Eph.5:25).

The way of nature, on the other hand, is the way of man, epitomized in Father. As Mother points out, “Nature only wants to please itself. Get others to please it too. Likes to lord it over them. To have its own way.” Again, this reminds us of a biblical parallel, something Jesus told his disciples: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.” (Matt. 20:25) Man lives competitively, wanting to be top dog, fighting fiercely for a bigger piece of the pie. This is even the advice Father gives the young Jack.

When his brother dies, Jack feels the pain of grief which is compounded by the struggles he experiences in his relationship with his father. Cutting between the young and the grown Jack, Malick shows us how these have deeply impacted the adult. Penn has almost no dialog, yet his morose facial expression tells the whole story. His ponderous gazing over the glass and steel structures that man has created (and he is an architect so has had a hand in some) leaves him cut off from the present, still reflecting on a past that was unforgiving.

The older Jack philosophizes, “Father, Mother. Always you wrestle inside me. Always you will.” Neither has won. Both seek full reign. And in the midst of this conflict, there is no peace for Jack. The truth is, “The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, your life will flash by.” And his life, like his father’s has flashed by, leaving him in a mid-life crisis of his own.

The beauty of the film lies in its emotive power. By focusing on characters and not story Malick draws us in, without setting a plot goal. The film takes its time bringing out meaning, much like life. We need to live with the O’Brien’s, experiencing something of the life of their children before we can empathize with the older Jack. By using cameras positioned at a child’s eye level, we see as if we were children, too. And the lack of speech forces us to be in the picture, seeing not listening, imagining what it was like, feeling their pain. It is not entertaining, it is hard work. But it is worth it, as it causes us to reflect on our own relationships.

Malick, though, is an Episcopalian, and brings the bigger question of man’s relationship to God and his place in the world to the center of this film. He opens the movie with a quote from the book of Job: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” (Job. 38:4) The middle movement, focused on Jack, is linked to the opening and closing scenes of the universe. Though not narratively connected directly, they are thematically complementary pieces. They allow Malick to show us man’s place in the universe. We were not there when God formed the heavens. We may not be there when he brings it to an end. (Though we hope to be with him in heaven enjoying eternity in his presence, through the work of Jesus Christ.) We live brief lives in between these two epic events, humble yet glorious. As David said to God in one of his psalms, “what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” (Psa. 8:4)

Yet there is a glory that God wants us to see and enjoy even as we live out our seemingly empty lives. The imagery of the film depicts this glory in everything around us. Toward the end, when Father realizes the error of the way of nature, he comments ruefully, “I dishonored it all. Didn’t notice the glory.” He has spent his life fighting to win and he failed to enjoy the glory around him. We can be like this, if we are not careful. The old maxim, stop and smell the roses, points to this element of the film. There is glory to be seen, if we lift our heads and open our eyes to see it. This pleases God. This gives meaning to life, as we see and give glory to our Maker (Rom. 1:19-21).

Faith and forgiveness are additional themes. It takes faith to see the glory. Jack struggled with faith in God. He struggles with forgiveness, too. Unlike Mother, who is quick to forgive, Jack resembles his Father. Yet one key scene has him reconciling with his brother, after he has shot him with a BB gun. “I’m sorry,” he says succinctly but in their eyes comes a moment of shared forgiveness. And this leads to an awakening of faith, as he prays to God, “What was it you were showing me? Always you were calling me.”

God is always calling us. He calls us back to him and then he stands waiting for us to come (Rev. 3:20). We can experience his forgiveness as we come to know him (1 Jn. 1:6-9). But it requires faith, a faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16), a faith that he exists (Heb. 11:6). Most of us struggle with these aspects of life, whether we admit it or not. Yet, when we look around, as Malick would have us do, we cannot escape the evidence of a Creator. And in seeing this evidence, we see the glory of God, and the reflected glory and humility of ourselves.

If you have never seen a Malick film, it is worth the experience, if you are willing to work at it. It is deep, sometimes disturbing, but always thought-provoking. He exemplifies the truth that it is quality not quantity that counts!

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Heartbreaker (L'arnacoeur) -- common interests and unhappy couples

2011-06-29T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Pascal Chaumeil, 2010. (PG-13)

Matchmakers work to bring two people together to form a marriage made in heaven. But what if the couple is mismatched and the marriage seems doomed to become a hell on earth? Then you call on a matchbreaker, or a professional heartbreaker, such as Alex (Romain Duris) in this French farce/rom-com.

With slim physique, two-day growth and sexy charm, Alex has everything he needs to take on the job of breaking up undesired partnerships. Working with his sister Melanie (Julie Ferrier) and her husband Marc (Francois Damiens), the actress and technologist, Alex is a professional marriage-derailer. Applying his two rules, to only work with unhappy couples and to never fall in love with the mark, he wins the girl’s heart each time. But then he turns on the tears and breaks up with her. He tells each one she deserves better than him, as he has been hurt too much. Surprisingly, each woman thanks him even as he leaves her.

The first ethical question is whether it is OK to break up an unhappy couple and hence stop them from getting married. If a man and woman are not in love but are caught in a relationship that neither can break, then it may be appropriate to offer help. The apostle Paul entreats us to “carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). We have a responsibility for the welfare of those in our faith family, and those we love. However, when love has blinded someone’s eyes their ears may be closed to the truth. They may not want to hear about the reality of the relationship, hoping against hope that things will work out. Friends are often ignored. In this sense, Alex’s two rules make sense to help and not further hurt the unlucky woman. In the long run, she is better off having fallen for his ruse. But the practice of the heartbreaker is deceptive, even if the end justifies the means. Using a sinful means taints the result.

With bills overdue and loan sharks on the prowl, when Juliette’s father approaches him to break up his daughter’s impending marriage, Alex violates his first rule. Juliette (Vanessa Paradis) is rich and beautiful and very much in love with her English fiancé Jonathan (Andrew Lincoln). And with the marriage just 10 days away, Alex has his work cut out to break a heart without breaking his second rule.

Acting as a personal security guard, Alex gets close to Juliette in Monte Carlo. Knowing her tastes from the research of his backup pair, he begins to use these as if they were his tastes, too, from favorite movies (Dirty Dancing) to favorite music (George Michael). In this way, their “common interests” bring them creepily together very quickly while Jonathan is away in England.

Here is a fallacy: interests that are exactly the same will create a harmonious relationship. It may spark an initial attraction, but over time it is the differences that amplify the attraction, not the similarities. Such differences bring intrigue and mystique, and cause us to search out the unknown in the other. They actually help each one to grow and develop as they learn more and spark new interests. Just as in magnetism, so too in life: opposites attract.

Unlike many French films, Heartbreaker moves along at a good pace and has many very funny moments. It does resort to some romantic comedy tropes, especially toward the end, but this is to be expected. The central couple has a charming chemistry, but it is never explained why Juliette’s father wants the marriage prevented, since Jonathan is a very eligible bachelor with no obvious faults.

The second ethical question is whether it is OK to break up a happy couple intent on marriage. Here, the right thing to do would be to endorse their betrothal and celebrate their nuptials. Why would a friend or father want to separate two people who seem perfectly matched for one another? It would appear to be only for selfish reasons. Paul’s advice here is, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit” (Phil. 2:3). When we place our own interests above our friends and then compound it by acting deceptively to destroy a relationship, we have ventured deep into sinful territory.

However you answer these two key questions, you can’t help rooting for Alex with his light and elegant Gallic grace. A heartbreaker he is. . . even when it may end up being his own heart that is broken!

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

Le Cercle Rouge (The Red Circle) -- Guilt and Innocence

2011-06-19T09:00:00.000-07:00

Director: Jean-Pierre Melville, 1970. (NR)

If you were asked to name the greatest heists movies of all time, what films would come to mind? Maybe Heat or The Italian Job. Probably Oceans 11. You’d likely not include Le Cercle Rouge; you’ve probably not even seen it. But it is quite possibly the greatest French heist film.

As French films go, this is long and languid. The first hour is spent developing character, tone and atmosphere, without especially advancing the plot. It is only in the second hour of this 140 minute movie, that the heist is planned and executed.

There are four key characters, three introduced in the first act. Noteworthy is the absence of any female roles. This is a masculine movie set in a man’s world.

Corey (Alain Delon) is the first character. A suave, mustachioed criminal, he is about to be released from prison after five years. Before gaining his freedom, a crooked guard presses him to commit the perfect crime: robbing a Parisian jewelry store. On the day he is released, he confronts and robs a former friend and criminal, then buys a car.

That same day, criminal suspect Vogel (Gian Maria Volonte) is being transported by train to be indicted and face justice. Handcuffed to his sleeper-cabin bed, he manages to pick the lock, jump through the window and flee into the wintry fields. Inspector Mattei (Andre Bourvil in his final performance), who had been accompanying him, sets a massive manhunt in place, but to no avail. Plodding and patient, he pursues Vogel through the film, being its only positive presence. He is the one who hears and challenges the moral of the movie. But we’ll come back to that.

The apparent philosophical meaning of the title, The Red Circle, is that those who are meant to meet will meet in this circle. And Vogel is meant to meet Corey. When he hides in Corey’s trunk, their meeting is destined to happen. Through a lucky break, Corey manages to get through the police roadblock. Chance, then brings these two criminals together. And they agree to commit the heist. Needing a third team member, a marksman, they call on an acquaintance of Vogel’s: Jansen (Yves Montand), an ex-police marksman, who is now an alcoholic. This is the trio that will hit the store.

After the lengthy prelude to the heist, writer-director Melville makes a stunning choice to shoot the robbery in almost real-time. The heist takes up almost half an hour, during which there is no dialog or background music. It is virtually silent, adding to the growing tension. This surely stands as one of the finest robberies in screen history.

Yet for all this, Le Cercle Rouge is like a French film noir sans the femme fatale. It is a world of moral darkness, with little hope. The key theme is stated by the police chief: “All men are guilty. They’re born innocent but it doesn’t last.” As if the viewer might miss this, he later repeats it to Mattei directly, “And don’t forget. All guilty.” The cop responds with a question: “Even policeman?” But the chief is clear: “All men, Mr. Mattei.”

Here, then, are the themes: guilt and innocence. And here are two questions to consider: are all people guilty? And are all people born innocent?

With respect to the first question, the Bible is clear: “For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one;’“ (Rom. 3:9-10). We would like to consider ourselves pure and righteous and good. But this is not so. Paul goes on, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Our guilt condemns us before the judgment seat of God. None is innocent at this bar.

But were we innocent at birth and since we fallen from this state? Again, the Bible answers this question with clarity and specificity. King David, in one of his most famous psalms says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psa. 51:5). Sadly, we have inherited the nature of sin from our original father, Adam (Gen. 3:6). At birth we emerge from the womb with a corrupt nature (Jer. 17:9). Like Melville’s vision, we are desperately dark and depraved. The world is a harsh place.

Unlike Le Cercle Rouge, though, we are destined to meet Jesus in the red circle, the circle of his blood. He shed his blood (Rom. 3:25), giving up his life, to pay the debt of our sin. When we meet him and fall at his feet as followers, he gives us a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17) and a second chance at life. We are not destined to be criminals forever like Corey or Vogel. We can be clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Gal. 3:27). But we must accept and embrace Christ. Only in his red circle will we find hope and life.

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs

8 Women (8 Femmes) -- Secrets and their Impact

2011-06-13T07:00:00.000-07:00

Director: François Ozon, 2002. (R)

8 Women could be pointing to the “who’s who” of French actresses who comprise the cast. Topped by Catherine Deneuve (A Christmas Tale), possibly the greatest living French actress, she is joined by Isabelle Huppert (Thank You for the Chocolate), Fanny Ardant and Emmanuelle Beart to name just a few. In fact, though, the 8 women are the suspects in a murder in this French musical murder-mystery.

It is Christmas in the snowy French countryside in the 1950s. As a family gathers together to celebrate the holiday, the patriarch, a wealthy industrialist is discovered murdered in his bedroom. Seven women are together in the living room and one other joins them. Any one of them could be the murderer. It could be his wife Gaby (Deneuve), his two daughters Suzon (Virginie Ledoyen) and Catherine (Ludivine Sagnier), his neurotic and spinsterly sister-in-law Augustine (Huppert), his greedy and miserly mother-in-law Mamy (Danielle Darrieux), his floozy sister Pierrette (Ardant), his loyal cook Chanel (Firmine Richard) or his new sexy maid Louise (Beart). Each has a motive. Each has a secret.

When they find the phone line has been cut, the car has been damaged and the gate has been blocked, they realize they are isolated in the house and one of them is the killer. But which is it? As the film progresses, their secrets are revealed, shocking each other and showing there is more to each one than meets the eye.

Ozon gives each woman a song to sing along the way. These are mostly short but the lyrics are a little odd. They probably make more sense to the French, but the English subtitles make the songs seem somewhat random. Still, the film is farcical and fun, even if it veers to the melodramatic at a few points.

Familial and personal secrets are the ethical theme that fuels the film. The point here, of course, is that all the secrets that emerge are a result of sin. And a veritable array of sins it is, from greed (Isa. 57:17, Rom. 1:29) to jealousy (Rom. 13:13), from sex (Exod. 20:14) to stealing (Exod. 20:15). Having sinned, the women wanted to hide their deeds. But sin has consequences, and when the truth comes out, as it always does, the impact is terrible. The strong relational ties from the beginning of the film have become damaged, even severed, by the end.

It is clear, though, that if these women had not sinned they would have no secrets. Moreover, if they had come clean and confessed the power of the secret would have been removed. Only by virtue of the personal deceit did the women put themselves in a position of vulnerability.

The storyline illustrates the principle of leaving a life of transparency with our family, friends and coworkers. When we are open and admit our faults and failures, even our sins, we can receive forgiveness. God himself offers forgives us when we sin, if we confess before him (1 Jn. 1:9). The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ provided the necessary atonement for all sin (Rom. 3:25, Col. 2:13), at all times (Heb. 7:27). . . . even for these 8 women!

Copyright ©2011, Martin Baggs