The full-trailer for the new Star Trek movie is out and it looks frickin' cool. It's an origins story that looks like it follows Kirk and Spock from childhood to their beginnings on the Enterprise. Not only that, but it's also directed by J.J. Abrams (creator of brilliant shows like Alias and Lost), and his style is evident even from the snippets in the trailer. Check it out:



I'm also looking forward to the Twilight movie this weekend. Julie got me into the books (I usually don't go for vampire novels, especially ones primarily written for teenage girls) and they're actually not too bad. Based on the trailer, I'm a little concerned about the quality of acting, but hopefully it will still be entertaining.



After the movie, Julie and I will also be attending a Vampire Prom sponsored by the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin. It should be a lot of fun.

Labels: fun, movies/tv, personal

Julie was asked to write a review of Kirk Cameron's new movie "Fireproof" for Sojourner's God's Politics blog, so she took off for a few hours this Saturday to watch it (it's a "couples" movie, but I opted to stay home with the kids - explicitly Christian movies tend to make me want to hurl things at the screen.) Her review is up now and I personally think she did a fantastic job of critiquing the film's implicit subtext that women should be passive and silent partners in a marriage - that saving it is the man's job, and that it's the institution of marriage itself needs to be saved, even at the expense of the wife's individuality. Go check it out.

Labels: movies/tv

"My parents deserved justice."

"You're not talking about justice. You're talking about revenge."

"Sometimes they're the same."

"No, they're not the same, Bruce. Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about making yourself feel better."

As I re-watched Batman Begins last week in preparation for seeing The Dark Knight, I was surprised to hear this exchange about the nature of justice. I've written here before about how true justice is not merely, or even primarily, retributive (i.e. revenge), but rather that justice, at its root, is about restoring broken relationships (i.e. harmony).

Of course the Batman legend, both in the comics and in the movies, has always sparked reflection about the nature of justice, though usually the conversation is about vigilante justice versus the (often corrupt) rule of law. However, as this quote illustrates, Batman Begins turns out to actually be about these competing conceptions of justice - is it primarily retributive (i.e. punishing evil doers) or restorative (healing and redeeming broken people, whether victims or perpetrators). For instance, the main conflict in the movie is between Bruce Wayne, who desires to save Gotham City from its evil ways, and his mentor, Ra's al Ghul, who believes Gotham is too far gone and ought to be destroyed. Similarly, Batman almost never kills his enemies, instead turning them over to the police for arrest or institutionalization (and presumably rehabilitation) in an insane asylum (after all, superheroes tend to attract a lot of crazies). This aversion to doling out final punishment reflects a belief that no one is beyond hope and that even criminals can be reformed and restored (a perspective that Ra's al Ghul explicitly denies at another point in the movie).

This kind of philosophical depth is why I enjoyed Batman Begins so much, and why I greatly enjoyed The Dark Knight as well. (Though of course the philosophical dilemma is different in that movie - more about the tension between chaos and order, and whether good has to become like evil in order to defeat it.) People who think that comic book heroes are nothing but kid stuff (several of my elementary school teachers come to mind) clearly haven't been paying attention.

Labels: movies/tv

WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD!!!


I'm a little late with this review, but a few weeks ago Julie and I got to go see Prince Caspian. I've always loved the Narnia books, and as a kid Caspian was one of my favorites (I think I've always just had a thing for stories about out-numbered, underground resistance movements). Going into the movie I had heard that it didn't stick too closely to the book (which I could already tell from the trailers), and that turned out to be true. However, I've never been a purist when it comes to movie adaptations, even of books that I love - whether Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, or now Narnia. I think it's far more important to capture the spirit of the book and to reshape it into a story that will still be compelling when translated onto the very different medium of film. Peter Jackson accomplished that exceptionally with LOTR; Chris Columbus did less well with the first two Potter films, though the more recent ones have been better; and I was even slightly disappointed with the first Narnia movie. However, this one, in my opinion, was excellently done. The writers, producers and directors took a very linear, straightforward plot from the book and gave it enough twists, turns, and suspense to make it enjoyable for a screen audience. It's a different story in some ways, but as it's own story, it's pretty good.

Some of the changes they made which I particularly liked included:

• Portraying the Pevensies as bitter and slightly angry about being back in their world after their time in Narnia. Let's face it, if you had lived your half a life in a place where you were kings and queens and had friends and a home, and then suddenly, without warning, it was all taken away and you had to do adolescence all over again, wouldn't you be just a tad upset?
• Spending more time on the behind-the-scenes politics and intrigues of Miraz's court.
• Intensifying the clash of authority between Peter and Caspian (too many kings in the kitchen) and adding a sequence about a failed raid on Miraz's castle planned by Peter. I thought it was a believable twist, added to the drama of the story, and heightened the sense of desperation among Caspian's followers.
• Showing, rather than merely telling about summoning the White Witch. You really get a sense of the seductive power of evil.
  
• Adding a bit of romance between Caspian & Susan. Even though Lewis would have never gone there, in the context of the movie it's totally believable (especially since Caspian is played by tall, dark and handsome actor with a Spanish accent).
  
• Leaving out Aslan's romp through Narnia with Bacchus. It's fun in the book, but would have made no sense at all in the movie.

That said, one thing I didn't like in the movie, and this is actually a flaw in the book too, is the literal deus ex machina ending (same problem in the first book too). In both Aslan literally roars in to save the day, despite him telling Lucy that he wasn't going to do that ("Nothing happens the same way twice, little one.") I know Lewis probably had some theological point to make with this, but in a story, it's a bit cheap. If the god-like figure was going to step in and fix everything instantly anyway, then when didn't he do so sooner and save everyone a lot of trouble. (Actually, that's not a bad theological question either, and how you answer it will make a big difference for your eschatology.)

Anyhow, overall it was a fun movie and a good adaptation. I'm glad we were able to find time before the baby comes to go see it on the big screen.

Labels: movies/tv, Narnia

After hearing him speak at the 2003 National Youth Workers Convention and reading his book, Son of a Preacher Man, I've come to have a lot of respect for Jay Bakker, son of the infamous Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. He leads a church in Atlanta (with branches in New York and Charlotte) called Revolution, which reaches out to punks, goths, drug addicts, gays and other societal rejects from the urban alternative subculture with a message of God's unconditional grace. I just found out that the Sundance Channel will be doing a reality tv series on him and his church called "One Punk Under God". I don't get the Sundance Channel anymore, but I think you can download the episodes from ITunes. I'll look forward to watching them. You can also read about Jay and the show here, or watch the 30-second promo below:

Labels: movies/tv

You can see an excellent 15-minute interview with Scot McKnight on CBS 2 Chicago by clicking here. The discuss both McKnight's new Mary book as well as the emerging church. Check it out!

Labels: movies/tv

So I've been hearing about this new documentary, Jesus Camp, from a number of sources.



The synopsis on the website says this about the movie:

A growing number of Evangelical Christians believe there is a revival underway in America that requires Christian youth to assume leadership roles in advocating the causes of their religious movement.

JESUS CAMP, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, directors of the critically acclaimed The Boys of Baraka, follows Levi, Rachael, and Tory to Pastor Becky Fischer's "Kids on Fire" summer camp in Devil's Lake, North Dakota, where kids as young as 6 years-old are taught to become dedicated Christian soldiers in "God's army." The film follows these children at camp as they hone their "prophetic gifts" and are schooled in how to "take back America for Christ." The film is a first-ever look into an intense training ground that recruits born-again Christian children to become an active part of America's political future.

And here's a trailer of the movie:



I grew up at a Christian camp, and in a Christian environment that did use language like "taking back America for Christ", but nothing I experienced was as extreme as this seems to be. There is a growing movement among the extreme Religious Right known as dominionism that basically advocates a theocratic society and spreading the kingdom of God through political domination. For instance, dominionist Christian George Grant has said:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

The lines between this extremism and the kind of conservative Christianity I grew up with are very blurry, and it's sometimes hard to distinguish between those who simply want conservative Christians to have more influence in public life (as if control of the White House, Supreme Court, and both branches of Congress aren't enough), and those who want to restrict non-Christian religious freedom and impose Christian morality (sometimes including the Old Testament Law) universally in America.

What's scary to me is the militaristic language and imagery that is often used to promote this agenda - and how it's sometimes difficult to tell whether they are using that language metaphorically or literally. And it's especially disturbing when they start indoctrinating kids with it; as with Acquire the Fire's Battlecry conferences



which focuses so much on the culture wars in America that it can almost convince kids that the liberal secularists are literally coming to abduct them in the night and ship them off to concentration camps for being Christians. How soon before some of these kids get the impression that they need to fight back literally and violently?

Labels: movies/tv

Many of you will have heard by now about Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, a powerful documentary about the global warming crisis. (Yes, it's real. No, it isn't just a "liberal" issue.) I haven't been able to see it yet (it's hard to do movies when you have an 18-month old), but an old friend of mine has and had some really good things to say about it. With her permission I'll reprint her review of it here:

Hello family and friends--

I write in mass because i want to reach as many of you in one time as possible. Kevin and I attended a showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" last night, and I was truly amazed by the information put forth in the documentary/movie. For those of you not familiar with the title, it is a film that follows Al Gore as he speaks to groups about global warming and the climate crisis that is a possibility in the coming century(ies). Now, some will say, I don't want to pay $8 to hear an Al Gore PowerPoint presentation. The film is much more than that though. I was astounded by the scientific data, collected decades ago, that predicted quite closely what the effect of raising greenhouse gases would have on the temperature and weather related disasters in the present day. I was astounded that politics could twist agreed scientific facts into nothing more than hearsay and fiction. I worry deeply about this as a scientist and think each of us, scientist or not, need to stand up to these politicians and let them know that while they may be crooked and influenced by the companies that line their pockets, scientists are not. Most of all, I was astounded by the fact that we, as a country, have everything it will take to slow this process, but seem unwilling to implement such attainable measures - increased use of public transit, sale of only energy efficient appliances, increasing CAFE standards for automobiles (amazing how we pale in comparison with every other developed country), etc. This, coming from the country that stood first to decline the use of harmful aerosols and other products that caused the hole in the ozone, a hole that is now almost mended due to quick action on the global scale. And now, we are the country that does not even recognize the Kyoto Treaty.

I truly encourage each of you to see the film and to take your children, and other family and friends with you as well. I truly believe that this is a not just a film, but an educational lesson that should be seen by all. Seeing it has effected me deeply and makes me wonder if a century from now, children will ask their parents what their great-grandparents could have done to save the planet, or be able to praise their great-grandparents for the steps they took to make the world a sustainable resource. Change is never easy, but it is always possible.

love and hugs to all,
Monica

Labels: movies/tv, social justice

Well we made it on the news. I had two clips and Julie had one, though they also quoted Julie at the top of the online transcript saying "I think it's a new reformation. I think it's a new way of looking at the Bible."

The whole piece was pretty good, though very short and not very detailed. You can see a video of it at the website, and they should soon have some links to our church and the others involved in the segment. At any rate, I'm glad for the attention to the emerging church, and I hope it will potentially lead to more people finding out about the movement who were perhaps on the verge of giving up on traditional Christianity.

Labels: emerging church, movies/tv

I recently watched the documentary Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price. While I've always known that Wal-Mart has a lot of unethical business practices, I never really realized how much of a menace they are to ideals of community, livable wages, local economy, and care for Creation, among other things. As the second largest corporation in the world (after Exxon) what Wal-Mart does has global ramifications. And the frightening thing is that Wal-Mart is just one of hundreds of corporations, most of whom likely act in similarly despicable ways (c.f. The Corporation DVD for more on this).

This documentary naturally began by talking about the damage that Wal-Mart does to local businesses in small communities. This is a reality that I myself have personally experienced in several of the small rural communities I've lived in around the state of Michigan. In fact, my dad's current place of employment, a small local grocery store is, as we speak, under threat from the big new Super Wal-Mart grocery that just came to town. One line from the movie that struck me is that "you can't put a price on small town living." There is something lost in our quality of life when we don't know the people who sell us our food and clothes and tools. When the profits from our purchase don't stay within our local communities to improve the quality of life for our neighbors, but instead goes to line the pockets of corporate CEO's, billionaire owners, and faceless investors, we are all diminished.

The movie also mentioned the absurdly low wages and lack of decent benefits that Wal-Mart associates labor under. Apparently full-time Wal-Mart employees make so little that they still qualify for welfare, food stamps and government healthcare... and Wal-Mart's official benefits policy actually encourages their employees to apply for government assistance! But when Wal-Mart employees try to unionize to demand a living wage, the corporation goes into high-alert and utilizes rather extreme tactics to squash any unionizing attempts.

For more on the drastically low wages of Wal-Mart employess check out the hilarious online music video I've Got Friends With Low Wages. It's another flash animation short similar to the Meatrix ones I posted below.

The film also discussed the sweatshop conditions in China that Wal-Mart products are produced in. Part of the reason Wal-Mart can sell you shirts for under $10 and jeans for less than $20 is that they only have to pay the people who actually make those clothes a few pennies for each item they produce. (Question: would you be willing to pay $0.20 more for your clothes if it would double the daily wages of the Chineses workers who make them for you, vastly improving their standard of living?)

Besides these issues (as if these weren't enough), the film also brings up the ecological damage that Wal-Mart stores often cause to their local environments; the high percentage of crimes that occur in Wal-Mart parking lots because of their failure to provide security for their customers on their own property; and the tax breaks and financial incentives that small towns often offer to Wal-Mart in hopes of luring them to town, only to have Wal-Mart set up just beyond the city limits to avoid actually paying any sales taxes back into the community.

Of course, all these issues don't lend themselves to easy answers. Simply boycotting Wal-Mart isn't going to solve the problem. Many people have to shop there out of financial necessity. And Wal-Mart isn't going away anytime soon regardless, so the question is not how can we get rid of them, but how do we influence them to change their practices and become more ethical?

On a more positive level, we can also start to dream about how we can begin to support and increase local economies. What is a viable alternative to the Wal-Martization of society? How can we help our communities become places where our money largely stays within the community? How do we create a society where economy isn't just about buying goods and services from generic corporate vendors, but it once again becomes a vital part of the intricate web of social connections and relationships that helps us love and care for our neighbors?

And on an individual level we can question our own spiritual condition and whether we have fallen prey to the demons of consumerism and materialism that are the root cause of all the evils perpetrated by companies like Wal-Mart. In what ways do I personally serve the god Mammon rather than the One, True God? When am I more concerned about saving myself money, or just acquiring more stuff, than I am about justice and love for others? Can I begin to practice the spiritual disciplines of simplicity and fasting as a counter to the temptations of our consumer society? What else do I need to do to begin the necessary spiritual transformation within myself as part of the larger solution?

Of course, some might question whether these kind of concerns are really "spiritual" issues in the first place. It is too easy for people to label concerns like these with terms like "liberal" or "activist" and thereby simply dismiss them. But when one reads a Bible that says things like ""This is the kind of fast day I'm after [says the LORD]: to break the chains of injustice, get rid of exploitation in the workplace, free the oppressed, cancel debts...get rid of unfair practices." (Isaiah 58:6) you begin to see that fair wages and just business practices are the kinds of things God is passionate about too.

These are spiritual issues. They are not just "activist" issues, they are gospel issues. When Paul writes that Jesus has triumphed over the powers and authorities (Col. 2:15), one of the major "powers" he is referring to is the power of money and greed over our lives. Our cutthroat capitalist economy is a "power", Wal-Mart is a "power", corporate greed is a "power"... and they are all powers that have been made subject to our Lord Jesus Christ through his victory on the Cross.

Fighting these powers may seem hopeless, pointless, futile... until we remember that Jesus has already overthrown them and is in the business of redeeming them for his glory. Another world is possible! Another world is already here! Let's leave behind the economy of corporate exploitation and join the economy of love!

Labels: movies/tv, social justice

In the movie V has this amazing alliterative soliloquy when he introduces himself to Natalie Portman's character, Evey. It's so cool! Just try reading it aloud:

This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, it is vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

Labels: movies/tv

Last night Julie and I saw one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. V for Vendetta is on one hand just another Orwellian vision of totalitarian domination in the future. But it's direct connection with current events, and it's setting in the near future (maybe 30 years from now) make it frighteningly realistic and believable. I left the movie thinking "This could really happen." It's a prophetic movie, one that uses fiction to wake us up to the truth about the direction our world is currently headed. Many people won't like this movie because it clearly shows the logical results of their current political beliefs. They won't like it because it holds a mirror up to our society and says, "Look at what we're becoming. Look at what could happen."

In the movie Britain has been taken over by a totalitarian government whose motto is "Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith". (Meanwhile the US has been devastated by biological warfare and civil war and is no longer a major world player.) In the UK people have traded their freedoms for security (while still using the rhetoric of freedom to justify the lack of it... sound familiar?) after a series of biological terror attacks that killed over 80,000 people. The resulting fascist state utilizes fear to keep the people passive and unified under their rule. And like most totalitarian governments, they also begin rounding up anyone too different who might prove to be a threat to unity: in this case political dissidents, homosexual, Muslims and other foreign immigrants, and the like. As in Nazi Germany these prisoners are subjected to inhumane scientific experiments.

From one of these prison camps escapes the hero of the story, a masked vigilante known only as "V". V's goal, in addition to taking vengeance on the doctors and scientists who brutally tortured him, is to foment revolution among the people through symbolic acts of resistance. Though arguably insane, V is also seems to be the only one courageous enough to stand up and declare that our freedom is too high a price to pay for security.

The movie raises all kinds of interesting questions, especially regarding the fine line between terrorism and freedom fighting. (Often it seems, in our world as well as in the movie, the definition depends very much on which side you're fighting for.) Is it possible that we can overuse the word "terrorist" to the point where it becomes synonymous with anyone who opposes our own political agenda? One can imagine the British of the 18th century calling the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism. Or the Nazi's labeling Dietrich Bonhoeffer a terrorist. When do violent acts of resistance count as terrorism, and when are they justifiable acts of revolution?

And on a deeper level, does a movie like "V" still perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence? As much as I believe we must resist evil, oppressive governments, as a Christian I have to wonder whether violence will ever really achieve the goals we truly desire. Does violence bring freedom, or will it only result in more oppression, just from a different source? I can't think of many violent revolutions that led to a better society in the end. Is the true path to freedom that of nonviolent resistance, like that practiced by Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Jesus among others?

To the movie's credit, in the end change is brought about not through violence (at least not against people, though the Parliament building doesn't fare so well), but through a peaceful show of solidarity in the face of oppression.

One poignant line comes from a government agent asking a friend what he thinks will happen if the people do rise up as V has asked them to. He responds, "What usually happens when people without guns stand up to those who have guns." But in the end what happens is not in fact what one would expect.

As I said, this movie scared me because I could see it really happening. It's not so far fetched. What would happen if the US or Britian did experience another massive terrorist attack? What if someone releases a deadly virus? Or what if someone nukes London or Chicago? Or what if our economy tanks and we spiral into another Great Depression for the next decade or two? What freedoms would we be willing to give up for the promise of safety and prosperity? And for those religious conservatives... what injustices would you be willing to accept in your leaders so long as they were against abortion and homosexuality? What would you turn a blind eye to as long as they catered to your pet political issues and used the right kind of religious language?

It's not such a stretch to see how this dark vision of the future could develop out of where our world is at today. For those who think it couldn't, just think how easily Nazi fascism rose to power in Germany not so long ago. Are we so different from them? Do we think we're so much more immune to the tactics of fear and propaganda?

But hopefully this movie will serve as part of the solution to our current direction. Perhaps it will be part of the wakeup call that we need to help us see where our society is headed. God willing.

Labels: movies/tv, politics