“The Number 21″: Movie Review

*Possibly spoilers*

While books are much more worthwhile to spend one’s time in, and likewise review, I must say I get a lot of enjoyment (and occasionally a lot of truth) out of movies. “The Number 21″ is not one of those movies. But since it is impossible to watch a movie without seeing the implications of the philosophies the characters hold, I am going to bring out a few comments nonetheless.

I didn’t completely dislike the movie. But there were a number of troubling aspects about the movie that I noticed. Most Christians might be originally turned off to the movie because of its apparent reference to gambling; and while that is possibly a legitimate reason for not seeing the movie, I personally do not think my salvation is in question because I took the time to watch it.

One of the first things I noticed was a distinction made between mathematics and emotions. The main character, Ben, is praised for his lack of emotions, and his commitment to the math only. Kevin Spacey’s character, Mickey, is a professor who recognizes Ben’s genius. I was expecting another “Pay it Forward” type relationship where Mickey mentors the father-less Ben. Unfortunately, the Mentor-Mentee relationship is severely distorted, mostly by the greed both characters demonstrate, but also by an innate selfish character of Mickey. Later in the movie, Ben loses his cool and instead of just counting cards, he “gambles,” letting his emotions get involved. Not only does he lose the money that night, he also loses the good graces of Mickey, who unleashes on him all the selfishness and baseness that someone possessed by greed has, declaring that he has no real feelings of affection for Ben. Ben lashes out in the obvious hurt he feels, after losing a father-like figure, and tries to cut Mickey out of the group and do their own thing. Mickey responds by exposing them.

In The Great Gatsby, the “American Dream” is seen to be shallow and hollow, just an illusion. It is the same for this movie…. kind of. The opening scene shows Ben interviewing for a full-ride scholarship for Harvard Medical School, but he is not extraordinary enough to really “dazzle” them. It would take him quite a few years to make that much money at his current job, so when the opportunity arises to count cards with the other members who play Blackjack for a living, after some struggle, he finally agrees; but only until he gets enough money to go to Harvard, and then he’s out. So he says.

Of course, the lifestyle he lives on the weekends in Vegas is much more fulfilling then his former lifestyle. He stops hanging out with his friends, letting them down by refusing to put effort into their project for a science competition. His pursuit of his dreams is very autonomous; not only does he let down his friends, but he lies to his mother.

But, he gets caught counting cards and loses everything. But, the American Dream has not quite died! He knows that “there must be some way to work things out.” (I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that naive sentiment portrayed in movies and TV shows. It was in a Grey’s Anatomy episode I watched the other day too, where they bought a cheap apartment, and so to make it work one of the characters steals things from the hospital to make the place look better.) So, he restores his relationship with his mentor and girlfriend, and they try again. Once again they win big, but are stopped. The mentor, who has already been shown as extremely selfish and only using Ben and the other students for his own greed, has taught Ben well; Ben sacrifices Mickey so he can save his own skin.

And yet… he loses the money once again. But the movie does not end hopelessly! How would that be a good movie. No, instead, Ben returns the interviewers for the scholarship and tells them his very dramatic story of life in Vegas and all the money he won… and lost. This time, he dazzles them, with the implication that he would be able to attend Harvard the following year.

There is a distinction made in the movie between pure methods to achieve one’s dreams, and corrupted methods. But even though on the surface it would seem like the corrupted methods are criticized as negative, it is only Ben’s story of his dramatic life that grants him the type of dazzling story that will get him into Harvard.

“The Gospel According to the Beatles”: A Review

I figure if these two guys can talk about a book they’ve never read, so can I.

I really enjoyed “Across the Universe.” I’ve never really listened to the Beatles, nor do I care to now, really, but their music was brought to life for me through that movie in a beautiful way. This blog is more to laugh at reviewers who have no idea what they’re doing then an actual review on my part.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”: A Review

I went and saw this movie with a couple teachers and a few of my classmates yesterday. When I first heard about the movie I thought it was pretty stellar that an anti-evolution movie was even going to make it to theaters; and if Ben Stein is the one behind it, then of course it’s going to happen. Before I watched the movie, however, I heard that it had gotten rotten reviews on rotten tomatoes; out of 30 reviews, it got a 10% rating.

Reviewer Steven Hyden said this: “Expelled is a classic bait-and-switch, presenting itself as a plea for freedom in the scientific marketplace of ideas, while actually delivering a grossly unfair, contradictory, and ultimately repugnant attack on Darwinists, whose theory of life is first described, in frustratingly vague terms, as “unintelligible” and “a room full of smoke,” then as a pathway to atheism, and finally as a Nazi justification for the Holocaust.” All the other reviews I skimmed on the site were similar.

But I watched the movie, and although I found it incredibly dramatized, and the Hitler connection was a bit difficult to appreciate, I did find some valuable things in it. It should be acknowledged that regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creationism (or intelligent design– some ID people did NOT want to be associated with creationism), it is a belief based on faith and uncertainty. This is a question of a religious nature, whether the religion is Christianity/Judaism or Science. His interview with Richard Dawkins was quite poignant. So was the hopeless rantings of an atheist professor from Cornell, who quite forcefully said ID was just plain “boring,” and then went on later to deconstruct any possible morality or meaning from life, and said clearly that if his brain tumor returned, he would blow his brains out before dying horribly. Didn’t matter, anyway.

The movie mentions at one point how we are ultimately shaped by our worldviews. Although that is a cultural “buzzword” right now (and was exploited as such in the movie), it has an element of truth to it. I do not think that movie had the proper rhetoric to persuade anyone to change how they viewed this issue; for those who already believe in ID they will be righteously reinforced in that belief, and for those who are atheists and/or evolutionists, this is just a laughable farce. “”There is no way to bypass the filter of one’s own perceptions,” as my friend Seth put extremely well.

Seth then directed me to a quote from The Fairly Oddparents. “In an infinite universe where reality is interpreted through our continually fluctuating perceptions, providing absolute definitive proof of any objective truth becomes little more than speculation based on random data.”

Criticism vs. Grace

“Whenever you feel like criticizing any one… just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages
that you’ve had.”

~”The Great Gatsby,” by F. Scott Fizgerald.

This is how The Great Gatsby begins, setting the tone for the whole book. The book is quite fascinating, and I may follow up with a more appropriate review of it. But for now, this line is of personal importance to me.

This seems to be a truthful statement to me, in light of my identity as a Christian. Christian language might call it grace; and giving someone grace is usually what we are called to do instead of judging them. We are often called to give them grace in such a personally sacrificial way, too… and usually without much (or any) reward. But on the other side of things, Truth is important. Living within the advantages (and lack there-of; and the lack of advantages could be seen as an advantage, in some ways) that I have, I try to live my life as truthfully as possible (always trying to re-discern what that looks like), and my first reaction is to expect the same level of truthfulness in the lives of others. But should I? Should I excuse their lack of growth for their circumstances, and should I instead just give of myself, feeding into the lack of growth, instead of expecting better of them?

Personal example; my mother has been promising to come back to Oregon for years. Finally, my paternal grandmother and I decided to give her an incentive, to make it more realistic for her, and offer to pay $500 of the cost of the trip. Whether that was a temporarily trip or a permanent move back here, there was no distinction… it was just up to her to pay the difference (meaning her cost would differ depending on what she decided). The last few months have been in preparation of a temporarily trip, specifically for my graduation. But, my mother has chosen to spend her money on other things the last couple days; she spent $700 on a car. Upon first hearing this I was so upset. She valued a car more than being there for me at one of the most important times of my life? She had survived before without a car… why did she need one now all of a sudden? But, I refrained from criticizing, with this quote in mind. Instead I didn’t know anything positive to say either, so I just didn’t say anything for a long time. My silence gave her the opportunity to talk as much as she wanted, and she explained how, after divorcing her abusive husband, her daughter from that marriage lives with him, and now she sees her only a few times a month, if that. A car would make it more possible for her to take the initiative and see her, instead of relying on him to bring her whenever he wanted to. She also explained how she was unsure if she would ever be in the same circumstances and able to buy a car, and that she was incredibly weary of walking to and from work in the intense cold and intense heat of Kentucky.

All these different factors that I really didn’t consider, or at least didn’t deem as important, coming from my own context of having a car that I drive every day, and although I also am separated from my family, it cannot be fixed with something as simple as buying a car. If buying a car has fixed that alienation for her, who am I to hold her to keeping the commitment to come here? If she had saved that money for the trip, she would have sacrificed part of her relationship with that daughter. And she does not really know me… I am just an idea, or a voice to her. She knows my sister. That is her true reality. It is hard to act in a reality one does not live in.

Same with my father. He lives only a little over an hour away, if that, but his reality is completely different from mine. I was irate to learn that he did not want to come to my graduation. For the last six years I’ve expected nothing of him. Why was he not willing to even come and be there for me, getting outside of his own wants for once? But the world I inhabit is different than the world he is in. He is in a world that is barely stable, and any change in action might topple it. Any interaction with something strange or alien to his habitual way of life has the potential to send him into a depressed state of mind that could potentially end in a drunken suicide. Would I be selfish enough to criticize his choice to stay away when I cannot even imagine the hell that is his mind?

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps Fitzgerald was wrong too. Perhaps there is a sense of morality that transcends context, or the advantages that a person has had and that everyone is expected to have some sort of pre-existent knowledge of right and wrong imprinted on their heart. If that is so, my anger toward them could be constituted as righteous, and I should expect them to act the way I would. But I think it would be more helpful if the contexts they are in could somehow change if I expect them to act like me. What Fitzgerald deems as “advantages” I am translating as just the context one finds himself in. I find myself in a context surrounded by Christians who have a unique story that gives a different set of objectives for our lives. I have aligned myself to that story. I value faithfulness and truthfulness, and selflessness. The reality and the story that my mother and father have aligned themselves with is a story of alcoholism; self-sustainability is the only thing they can see.

I think my story constitutes that I give them grace and through that try to transform their story; but I can’t expect their actions to match mine. Or if I do, I can’t get angry when I am vulnerably disappointed. Perhaps my story even calls me to place myself willingly into that vulnerability knowing that I will be exploited. Isn’t that what Christ did on the cross?

A blog… really? Whatever for?

I really did not give a proper introduction to my new blog site. So, I have two options; one, forget about it; or two, go ahead and write it a few days late. As a lover of Truth, I might as well make an attempt at being honest, which includes getting my intentions out there, that way I stay consistent to them and I do not inadvertently mislead anyone.

So, in light of that… it should be known that I really have no credentials. I may consider myself smart or intelligent, but that is really relative. I’m a lifelong student however, and one thing I do know; I learn through getting my thoughts down on paper. Or, in this case… on monitor. I’ll be writing down commentary regarding things I’m reading, and I often try to make connections between different sources that are influencing me.

Most of all this blog site is for my benefit; a recording of the historical growth in my life, but more importantly a kind of… written community. I mean that in the sense that some days I do not get to discuss things that might be deemed “philosophical.” But these things are very important to me. So, despite the one-sideness of this conversation, that is what I set out to do; converse. Of course, talking to myself is really a last resort. Any comments are well-appreciated, and I will be diligent in keeping up the conversation.

Can You See the Matrix?

“While the voices of blockbuster movies and pop culture cry out for a life outside the matrix of numb efficiency… thankfully there is a movement of ordinary radicals sweeping the land, and ordinary people are choosing to live in radical new ways.”

A friend of mine wrote a blog about Shane Claiborne’s book “Irresistible Revolution.” I started to leave a comment, but it was getting to be just as long as the post itself, so I decided to write a blog in response to his.

http://reverenceofthemysterious.blogspot.com/
2008/04/first-century-christianity-brought-to.html

Shane Claiborne is definitely someone who backs up his writing with actions. He’s not just promoting this sort of life-style; he’s living it. As a pseudo-Portlander, I was interested to note that an emerging church here in Portland, Imago Dei, was supported by the proceeds of his book.

One of the (many) definitions of Postmodernism is “Late-capitalism.” Everything is infiltrated with the capitalist mindset. I went to the Portland Art Museum today with some 9th graders, and I couldn’t tell you how many times they suggested to one another that they should become an artist, because they could make millions! Especially attractive to them was the ease with which they could do it. Work is not valued, in and of itself; only as a means of making capital.

Seeing how money is really only illusionary and symbolic, it seems like a shaky ground to base one’s potential happiness on. However, the real troubling aspect is that we not only judge inanimate objects within the capitalistic mindset, our fellow human beings. When we meet someone, one of the first questions we ask is “What do you do?” which is secretly the question, “How much money do you make?” Depending on their answer we know how much society values them based on the sort of work they do, a.k.a we’ll have much more respect for a doctor than a janitor, since they make more money. Even our houses and cars are structured around appearances, trying to make them look as expensive as possible to get people to think that we are well-valued in society. From what little I know of Foucault, he would see that as a power struggle; the more societal value we have, the more power. Having just read Karl Marx’s, “The Communist Manifesto,” his criticisms are particularly notable in light of this conversation.

And perhaps that is one thing Christianity can take from Marx. Not just his criticism of capitalism, but perhaps even his alternative lifestyle. As Victor alluded to in his blog, politically communism has failed miserably and it would be foolish to say that it is flawless. But in the context of the Church, should our communities be somewhat communistic? The Anabaptists seemed to think so, abolishing private property and private capital, etc.

The New Monastics, which Claiborne and some of his fellow brothers are sometimes being called, seem to value this sort of counter-cultural lifestyle as well. One could argue that we need to realize that we live by a different paradigm of reality; what the world tells us is “real” is really an allusion; a matrix we are stuck in. However, it is possible to recognize the matrix and have a rebirth (not unlike Neo’s– full of lots of pain) and to see the world as it really is. Rodney Clapp wrote a book called “A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian World.” While Neibuhr’s renowned “Christ and Culture” was profoundly important, Clapp’s criticism of it is that he addresses “culture” as this monolithic thing; Clapp recognizes that we live in a multi-cultural society, and that the church itself should be one of those cultures. And as its own culture, Christianity has a lot of practices (liturgy) that operates under a different way of thinking that reveals itself differently, and perhaps even counter-cultural (or, my favorite word, subversive). The New Monastics practice this liturgy in a profound way; but that is not to diminish the subversiveness of the “normal” Christian practices. Even getting up and going to church is itself a counter-cultural act; “time is money” capitalism says, and as such we should spend every minute we can trying to increase our capital. There is no way to “make money” at church (unless you’re the pastor?), but more than that, it is saying there is something much more valuable than money.

Sunrise over Alcatraz

“I will bless the LORD who has counseled me;
Indeed, my mind instructs me in the night.

“You have tried my heart;
You have visited me by night;
You have tested me and You find nothing…

“As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness;
I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake.”

~Psalm 16:7; 17:3a, 15.

Sometimes we experience “dark nights of the soul,” a time when we feel like the darkness of trials in our lives has imprisoned us. But it is during the night that the psalmist is visited by the Lord and counseled by Him. And in the morning, when the night is over, when we are finally freed from the prison into a glorious sunrise, righteously we are finally able to see the Lord, in satisfaction.

“Take up your cross and follow me.”

James K.A. Smith: “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church”

This video has absolutely nothing to do with the book. It’s quite obvious that both of these guys have never read it themselves, and that they are scrambling to find something relevant to say, which results in some unrefined discussion about what “postmodernism” is (which, of course, is very different than the definition Smith gives). Nonetheless, it is quite amusing. David Bruce, the main guy, seems incapable of not smiling, which made me smile the whole time myself. He seemed to find the book laughable. That’s funny, since I thought the same thing about the accuracy of the review.

The book itself is a really good primer for an introduction to the philosophical foundations of postmodernism. Unlike the reviewer in the video above, Smith makes the distinction between “postmodernism” (philosophical thought) and “postmodernity” (cultural ramifications). When David Bruce talks about being in more of a constructive era having moved on from postmodernism, he was right to say that postmodernism is a critique of modernism, and a deconstruction of it. However, regarding his views of being in the “creative era” that is beyond postmodernism, Smith would undoubtedly place those cultural exemplifications in the realm of postmodernity , which is truthfully “hyper-modernism” as just an extension of modernism. Smith also does not see it as helpful to pinpoint a historical time when postmodernism came about (which David Bruce would have known if he had read the book). Although it was not as quick of a read as Bruce seemed to suggest (how would he know anyway?), it does have accommodating language for the student who has never studied these things. It is particularly helpful that at the beginning of each chapter Smith takes the time to delve into a movie or book that illustrates the philosophical principles he’s explaining. The last chapter of the book presents a practical embodiment for the church to actively engage in the positive aspects of postmodern thought, ending with a narrative vision of what the church could look like.

Teaching the Communist Manifesto… to 9th Graders.

It is a horribly distasteful feeling to look into seventeen pairs of eyes belonging to the brightest freshmen I know… and see blank stares. Irritably, I cannot even interpret why they look blank; are they bored, apathetic, did they get enough sleep the night before, or do they just not see me as someone they can learn from? Of course, my real hope is that they are actually learning something, despite the evidence to the contrary.

I am a senior in high school, and the reason I was teaching The Communist Manifesto is because of my role as teacher’s assistant, and the teacher was out of town. I petitioned for the role of TA because I thought I wanted to be a teacher; but to be honest, I don’t know if teaching is even a profession I want to go into. I know I love to learn, and that I would love others to love to learn as much as I do. Not to mention the numerous ways my life has been changed by those who see their identities as “teacher” not just their occupation. But do I have the gifts and strengths to be a teacher myself? That is a question I hope I won’t have to wrestle with for a few years. But for the time being, I know I wanted to do my best in this role.

The class curriculum itself is quite fascinating in and of itself, even for me; the freshmen are learning things most people do not learn until college, if they learn it at all. The highlight of the year is the number of months they spent on the Enlightenment, reading literature that correlated with the time and/or themes of the Enlightenment. Now they are struggling through “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, the most difficult reading they’ve had all year.

I began reading it myself, and it certainly was not a piece of cake. The language especially is the difficult aspect for a group of 14-year-olds who would much prefer the writing style of Ted Dekker than the antiquated language of Karl Marx (and… perhaps I secretly speak for myself as well). So not only did I face the challenge to lead a discussion over the message of Karl Marx and its long-reaching implications (which I was not even sure if I understood correctly), but I also had to be able to tell them what specific paragraphs and words meant. It’s one thing to read something and have a nice summary to use for inspiration in an abstract discussion; quite another to actually encounter the text itself.

When it got down to it, certain things were disastrous. I selected a number of quotes that I printed the day before on transparencies, only to find the next morning I had not allowed the ink to dry before stacking them on each other, leaving them smudged and pretty much useless. Then I had thought we would start from page one, spending the most time on the first section, and if time allowed, move on to the second. Apparently I was not present (or paying attention) previously, since the class had already talked about the first section. In hindsight I realize I should have asked someone to summarize, both for my benefit and theirs, but instead I was so flustered I just opened it up to questions and jumped right into the material. I’m not sure if this was a good strategy on my part, especially because in some ways I made it clear to them that I really had no idea what I was talking about. Not to say that I told them I was unqualified (although they could have taken it that way) , or that nothing could be learned; I just wanted them to know that my comments and explanations were undoubtedly imperfect, even if my experiences gave me a better context from which to interpret the passages more accurately than they could.

For the majority of the period, I opened it up to specific questions the students had, and after having them read the paragraph they were struggling with, I’d try and explain it in layman’s terms. I had a dictionary on my desk for the words I had never heard of, or did not want to explain poorly. All-in-all, I think it went… alright. of course, there’s always things that can be improved. But, on the positive side of things, we parsed out exploitation, discussed why Marx would want to abolish things like private property, the family, and eternal truths and religion. I even tried to talk about metanarratives with them at the very end, but with about three minutes on the clock I think I just confused them more than anything. Hopefully it was at least a starting point for further conversation.

My biggest obstacle was not knowing whether or not they actually cared about trying to learn the material. A lot of my experience as a student has shown me that in most classrooms, the learner is almost entirely passive. As I’m studying teaching, however, I’m realizing that if true learning is taking place, it is the student who is the main character in the classroom, and as such should play a very active role. As a student myself it is a little uncomfortable to do that in classrooms in which my peers are content to be passive, and in which the teacher has some sort of agenda that makes them prefer to be the main character in the classroom. Because I am chiefly a student, it felt like I was masquerading as a teacher for the period, and I had no way of knowing whether or not the students saw me as someone they could truly learn from or someone not worth their time. Ultimately I hope despite their passivity and my own experience, learning occurred, at least in a foundational way that can continue to be built upon.