Movie Review: Angels and Demons (And my return back to this blog)

I have another blog now at theotherjournal.com. When I agreed to blog for them  I was an enthusiastic new college student, ready to take the world by storm. Throughout the year, I discovered that despite my good high school education, I still had more to learn. Much more than I anticipated, really. Along with finding other things made a priority in my life, since blogging during my high school days tended to be a defense against loneliness. Those things made blogging a chore, and something I had to do, and many weeks I just couldn’t think of anything blog-worthy. I hardly read blogs anymore, either, so that didn’t help.

But, this summer,  I am no longer living with 40 people. My boyfriend is roughly 2,000 miles away. I have a part time job, but who knows how much that will occupy me (or have any sort of fulfillment in my life). So, I have decided to resurrect this blog (for something other than school projects). This will give me an avenue to blog about whatever. The other blog they said I can write anything, the important thing is that I write, but I can’t just write thoughtless things on that site. I feel like it has to really intertwine the theme of church and culture, and if it doesn’t, I’m at a loss.

I’ve ended up writing about TV shows a lot on my other blog, sort of on accident, but that’s the only thing I’ve been doing for entertainment. I haven’t had time to read much, and so it’s just TV and movies. So here’s a blog about a movie. Maybe I can get the entertainment stuff out on this blog (although most of my seasonal shows are over). Then I can find more academically rigorous and philosophical things to say on the other one. =)

I watched the first Dan Brown novel made into a film after reading the book. I, unlike  the predominant church culture at the time, was not scared out of my mind for how people would take the book/film in terms of Christianity. It certainly is not that kind to religion in general, since the plot of the book basically argues that the Catholic church has been harboring all these secrets for so long. That’s not why I enjoyed the story, however. I really liked Brown’s way of piecing together the puzzle pieces in an action-packed novel that I couldn’t put down. The movie couldn’t quite do it justice, but it wasn’t bad.

This time, watching Angels and Demons, it’s been a while since I read the books, I just remembered I enjoyed this one more than the last. And after watching the movie, I remember why. This one has all the puzzle piece mystery thriller aspects that I enjoyed the first time, while being much more sympathetic to the church. Religion is not just a side-plot in this movie as it is so often if it is brought up at all…  Roman Catholic practices are integral to the plot. Thousands of extras were used to play devout Catholics who were upset about the Pope’s death, and they were not shown to be just mindless sheep who turned to religion out of fear. Instead, faith was praised. The Harvard Professor, who as an academic, could not understand God because his head told him not to. He was asked what his heart told him, and he said that his heart told him he didn’t need to. (His substitution for “belief” by answering with “understand” is interesting to note). He said faith is a gift, one that he had not been given yet. Weird! The atheist got religion right in a way that many Christians would not be able to articulate. I pity Brown, because that character is probably him. He’s the one who knows church history better than those in the church do, and yet his heart-head battle is too strong, and he is not receptive enough to the gift of faith yet. But there is definitely hope.

In the film, there are also corrupt priests, of course, and Brown certainly does not paint a clear and easy picture of right vs. wrong. The character who would be most likely to be called the antagonist saved the lives of thousands of people, and everyone had the impression that he should be made a saint and recognized as a martyr. I remember in the book the struggle between religion and anti-matter in the hearts of individuals was much more pronounced, like the priest who helped research it and discover it. He wanted to create anti-matter as a testimony to God, not as a way to show that science could out-do God. But of course, often the church tries to create something (like watches) for spiritual purposes, but the secular forces are much to strong and use the item for their own purposes. (Watches were meant to keep order for monks who had a set schedule on which they prayed the psalms. Now watches serve the purpose of the god of capitalism).

While I watched the movie, I could not help but wonder how on earth they filmed everything, and how much it cost! So much artwork is included in the movie, just as it was last time, and historically places. It was beautiful, and you’d have to check another site to see how much of it took place in a Hollywood studio and how much didn’t. I did read a source that was remarking how much the Pope disliked this movie… well, or what he thought this movie must be. The Vatican staff said they did not even read the script, just heard the name “Dan Brown” and assumed it was anti-religious. Because of that, they refused that it be filmed in much of Rome and the Vatican. Ewan McGregor, who plays the most controversial and perhaps anti-Catholic character, does not think the movie is anti-Catholic: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7586038&page=1. But regardless of whether it was actually filmed in the Vatican, it was very convincing,  and very well filmed, I thought, from the point of view of someone who has never taken a class on the subject.

And with that, I am going to move on again to thoughts of my time in college. Because college really kept me humble. I mean, I thought I had everything all figured out in high school; I felt my education was better than all my friends, and so when I went to school, of course I would still be a step ahead of everyone. And while that was true in some senses, in others it was completely wrong. So many people were smart in their respective fields of interest, whether it was film studies, or even my own major, philosophy. I could hardly keep up with conversations about philosophy in class and out of it, despite being a philosophy major. It worried me. Thankfully I found a home in English… there I could talk about things intelligently, among other intelligent people that I didn’t feel simultaneously threatened by.

I hope to continue writing here throughout the summer, perhaps as a relief from my McDonald’s job. Yes, you heard right, McDonald’s. I have a blog post somewhere about the evils of consumption, and McDonald’s is as good a corporation as any to represent that whole world. But, I am just a minimum wage employee who will work my designated shift, making sure the well-oiled machine that is McDonald’s continues to see another day with happy customers. It has to be better than using marketing ploys to get my friends’ parents to buy knives. The most important difference is: these customers come to McDonald’s. They have already decided they want to buy things. Now maybe my mannerisms and friendliness and efficiency will have an affect on whether they will come back, or if I can get them to add anything to their meal, but I dont feel like I’m constantly trying to trick them into something they didn’t ask for. Perhaps I’ll change my mind, but right now, I have no ethical qualms about working for McDonald’s.

VS.

V for Vendetta: Misinterpreting Locke?

“Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. 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.”

Although this is a relatively long quote, and takes a bit more intentional concentration because of the repetition of the letter “v,” there are some very key points to the character and purpose of the character of “V” based on his word choice. He is victim and villain; he is the “vestige of the vox populi.” These concepts remind me quite clearly of Locke, and consequently the principles that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (Common Sense) interpreted from him, as I will explain below.

At the heart of Locke’s philosophy is the understanding of the individual man as having been gifted by God with the gift of reason. Because man is reasonable and self-interested, Locke expects that he will mix his labour with the fruits of the earth to obtain only what he needs and can enjoy. There will be a few bad apples however, and it is for that reason that individuals come together and form government, for the protection of their property.

In V for Vendetta, that is the case. The people of England accepted the High Chancellor because he promised them safety, and a protection of their property in that he saved their lives (one’s property consists firstly of himself). But Locke, and Jefferson after him, feel that it is one’s duty to overthrow a government if it has stopped fulfilling its initial purpose. Locke explains that by nature people are averse to change, however, and will actually stand a lot of abuse before taking revolution upon themselves, answering the concern that with this mindset the government would constantly be changing. Locke did not want to encourage this sense of perpetual change; in fact, he was arguing against a state of chaos.

This is where the movie differs. In one sense it is the same; it is to the people that V commences his “war of words.” The movie depicts many shots of what could be construed as the “average citizen,” those in a bar, those in a nursing home, a family in an ordinary home– all with the same response to V’s words– contemplative silence and stillness. Their stillness is almost unnerving. The movie-makers believe, as Locke does, that people are inherently good, and when given the opportunity to act upon the truth, they will. V does this by blowing up buildings. Locke might also have approved the use of violence in the case of self-defense, however, that violence would be for something. As opposed to a rebellion, that simply proposes anarchy, a revolution involves a “turning,” or a restoration of government to its proper role. The movie might have vaguely implied that an alternative would be found after the present government was gone… but it is decisively vague.

Evey’s character contributes to this greatly. V teaches her a whole new worldview, if you will– a view that makes him sound like a “crazy person” at first (perhaps there is a similarity between V’s discipleship of Evey and how one might disciple someone into faith in Christ? A topic for another time). But in the end, although V is dead, Evey has clearly been converted, for it is she who pulls the lever and blows up the building. When the inspector asks her why she is doing it she says it is because people need more than a building… they need hope.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the movie: “But regardless of what weapons they try to use to effect silence, words will always retain their power. Words are the means to meaning, and for some, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country.“

Even though the methods V uses to fight for truth might be a little… untruthful, to say the least, constituted by violence, destruction of property, and chaos, the mindset behind his endeavor is a noble one. The movie talks a lot about fear, and how many of the people have been forced into inaction by their fear. But V finds a way to rid himself of fear, and he teaches that to Evey as well. And his fight is a fight of love. He had forgotten that in his pursuit of revenge… but he is reminded of it by his encounter with Evey as he falls in love with her. We could debate the difference of romantic love vs. Christian love, however for the point of this conversation I’d like to include another quote:

Evey: I don’t want you to die.

V: That’s the most beautiful thing you could have ever given me.

Death is not something that should ever be accepted as “good” or “truthful.” I heard talk today of a “happy fall,” but I think that is extremely dangerous. Death always is an unwelcome intrusion into our lives, and Christ conquered death for that reason. So although V’s methods might have caused the death of others, ultimately he was fighting against a society that was orchestrated by death. That does not excuse him and his misinterpretation of Locke, since he did not even fully articulate an alternative to the present government… however, its initial attraction to me was because of this fight for Truth. A pacifist would do it with far less violence, of course.

V is the “vox populi,” the voice of the people. His role is our role, and his fight is our fight. He fought for those citizens… and because he is them, they should be constituted by the same actions. Sounds sort of familiar… maybe like Christ and the church.

Will the Real Protagonist Please Stand Up?

There never seems to be much of a difference between villians and heroes. By that I mean, villians are always trying to convince their rivals that there is really not that much difference between them, and that they, by being extra-ordinary, have more in common and should be on the same side rather than opposing one anothers. Of course, usually the villian says all these things because he’s afraid the hero is stronger than him, so he tries to use rhetoric because of his fear. But in The Dark Knight the Joker has no fear. “Hit me!” he screams as batman hurtles towards him. He is chaos incarnate. And chaos has no fear. Only momentum.

So it is a legitimate question. How heroic is the Batman? The question is certainly a theme throughout the movie… he is a vigilante, an outlaw, someone who has no rules, save one. The Joker’s critique of rules is that they are imprisoning and then ultimately fail. He uses this against Dent, convincing him to abandon all his morals, reducing him to something not quite nihilistic, but darn near close.

Two-Face: You thought we could be decent men in an indecent world. But you were wrong; the world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance.
[holds up his coin]
Two-Face: Unbiased.
[looks at Gordon]
Two-Face: Unprejudiced. Fair.

One leaves the movie theater thinking that the Joker has succeeded in corrupting Gotham’s White Knight, but Batman has escaped unscathed. Saddened but not crushed by Rachel’s death, he is willing to take the fall for Dent because, he patristically decides, Gotham deserves better than the truth. Yet his actions contradict his own myth about how the world really is. He, unlike the Joker, believes in a world where people are naturally good, and have enough nobility of character to live for something greater than simple hedonism or self-preservation. Yet Rachel’s concern is valid… is Bruce Wayne Batman because he lives to serve the citizens of Gotham, or is it because he can’t imagine himself as someone other than Batman? Is he strong enough to endure so much power? Or wise enough? His arrogance in understanding the simplicity of criminals almost cost him as the Joker did the unexpected and nearly brought down the whole city. Why does he selfishly hog the role of hero instead of allowing someone like “Bryan” to do the same thing? He can believe in an ordinary citizen like Dent, but only because he’s powerful. What about the powerless? Has it ever occurred to Batman, or Bruce Wayne, that the powerless, the poor, possibly have a power and a wealth that is unimaginable to him? The power that was displayed by the criminals on the boat. That is true power.

Lots more could be said about this movie. Suffice it to say it is not simply good vs. evil. Throughout the movie the audience is horrified by the Joker, but a few times manages to find themselves siding with him or admiring his cunning, insane genius. Batman loses his perfect nobility, and it could be argued he compromises his identity and becomes more similar to the Joker than not by being deceitful and violent.

Wall-E: A Movie Review

Wall-E repelled me from the start. The previews convinced me the makers of Pixar were going to make yet another movie about robots, and as opposed to the more critical (and I think accurate) accounts such as “I, Robot” and “A.I.” and others that show the negative affects of a world inhabited by robots, I thought this one was going to be about how good they were.

And it was… to a certain extent. Just as I was afraid they were going to do, since the main characters are robots, they used movie-making and story-telling magic (often through humor) to emotionally attach the audience to Wall-E and Eva. Wall-E’s eclectic-ness and love of beauty showed him to be more “humane” than one would expect from a robot, and it is subtly implied that that is what has kept him alive, since all the other Wall-Es have “died.” Eva could be described (in human terms) as a B.A.– ready to shoot anything that seems like a threat or even an inconvenience or annoyance.

Yet… ultimately, despite all my criticisms of the movie, it was a work in anthropology, trying to decide what it means to be human. And surprisingly to me, they encountered consumerism quite profoundly in the movie. Consumerism was seen to be a huge problem– the premise of why Wall-E is by himself on earth is because the humans filled it up with so much trash it was no longer liveable. So, they go off to space to live while the Wall-Es (which stands for “Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class”) clean up the mess they left behind. The original people intend to come back once earth is cleaned up enough that life can live, but for hundreds of years that is not the case. So instead, their space ship becomes something extremely and eerily similar to “A Brave New World”– people who can do whatever they want, consume as much as they want, and in that way find their happiness. And on that line of exciting consumerism, I recently found out that EVA is designed by Apple.

The captain, which is one of the three humans who begins to return to what it means to be human, specifically by being honorable and virtuous, says a profound line when the robot who is controlling the ship tells him they cannot return to earth. “You will survive here,” the robot tells him. “I don’t want to survive,” the captain says passionately, “I want to live!” Two other passengers, with Wall-E’s help, discover a world outside of their TV screen, a world of beauty. The space outside their windows, the pool that no one swims in, etc… and then ultimately, through human touch, each other.

It is not really clear (possibly because it is chiefly a children’s movie) how reproduction happens on this ship. Children are kept in separate quarters from the others, cared for by robots, and again it is a sense of Brave New World. The captain asks the control robot for statistics at the beginning of the day and is told there is no more human count. Death is not discussed, but there is talk of “ancestors” so even though they have found out how to live happily with no worries, it is not an eternal life. Obesity plays a large part in relation to consumerism as well.

My frustration with the movie is that although they brought out all these criticisms, the solution seemed extremely unreal. The ship defeats the “evil robot” (which is another discussion that could be had- some robots are essentially good, while others are not. How did that happen? A discussion of Frankenstein might be in order for that), and then returns to earth with a green shoot that miraculously survives quite a beating. The captain somehow had water on his ship, although all other water sources seemed to have disappeared on earth, and they have been in space for 700 years. Then the humans take that one shoot of green and manage to reproduce it into lots and lots of greenery.

Which on the one hand, is extremely profound. Wendell Berry might be excited, that farming is put in such a positive light, and that the humans’ personal relationship with the earth is what allows them to live instead of surviving in a consumerism theme park. But, possibly because its supposed to be a side-plot anyway, and the real story is the romantic relationship between two robots, their lives are way to easily, sometimes at the assumption that the technology and robots helped make it that way (even though that sort of lifestyle is what led to the hyper-consumerism in the first place).

However, with all that said, it is a great movie about what it means to be human, and what our relationship with the earth should be. And, it is fantastic that such a seemingly silly movie can have such profound implications.

“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.

“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.”