Christian Movies not made by Christians

This blog is on the curtails of Glenn Peoples’ Berreta Cast. In one pod cast (“stop being a Christian, and starting being a person”), Glenn the wise criticized “Christian Ghetto” thinking. People who love the Christian Ghetto believe that a work of entertainment, scholarship, or literature is better because it is labeled “Christian” and produced by Christians and sold to you by your local temple money changer …umm… I mean Christian bookstore.

I need not repeat what Glenn has already said about the Christian Ghetto thinking. His podcast speaks for itself. Instead, I will point out a few great movies that have strong Christian themes, believable Christian characters, and –dare I say it- and presentation of the Christian message. How do these compare to the movies produced by the Christian Ghetto? Who cares! This is a positive case of where God is seen in film, whether or not it was produced by the approved sub-culture. After this I’ll ask some random questions about the Christian Ghetto.

Saved!. In Saved Jena Malone plays Mary Cummings, a perfect Christian girl at a perfect Christian high school with perfect Christian friends. There is a minority of heathens at the school, who Mary knows to steer clear from. The conflict takes off when Mary, in an effort to help her boyfriend overcome homosexuality, has sex with him. Then she gets pregnant.

I have already written a blog for this movie elsewhere in this blog. To summarize, this movie chastises evangelicalism like Jesus chastised the Levites and Pharisees in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Dramatically, this movie further shows how much evangelicalism has failed in the area of sexuality. The party policy fails in all its degrees: from silly neuroticisms to blatant judgmental hypocrisy. This movie is self-criticism for Evangelicals, if we can take the medicine.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose This movie begins with the death of Emily Rose, played by Jennifer Carpenter. She is dead from malnutrition and physical trauma. The priest, who was charged with her care, is arrested and charged with negligent homicide. The majority of the movie takes place in a courtroom. The important question is not whether the priest is guilty or innocent, but whether or not Emily was possessed by a demon or suffered from some psychiatric disorder.

The Christian themes of the movie are pretty obvious, and it is hard for me to expound on them without ruining the story, so I won’t. The themes can be listed at least. This movie presents what it might mean to imitate Christ in his death, very vividly and rather literally. It also addresses political issues, such as the role religion is p;ays in the public square. The courtroom setting also dramatizes the philosophical debate between religious reasoning and secular reasoning. It’s the enlightenment versus the middle ages all over again!

Finally, this movie is important for the same reason the Dexter series is. Jennifer Carpenter is hot.

The Mission I have only recently seen this movie, but it is my current favorite of the Christian movies not made by Christians. The film is set in 18th century South America. Jeremy Irons (who makes any movie better) plays Father Gabriel, a Jesuit priest. Robert De Niro plays the swashbuckling Rodrigo who joins the Jesuits to assuage a guilty conscience. The two work peacefully in a Mission to make Christians of the natives, but the empires of Spain and Portugal are at odds with the Church over territory, as well as access to abundant and affordable labor.

As things grow worse and worse for the mission, the movie asks “where is God?” The empires of Spain and Portugal eventually descend upon the peaceful mission. The church’s representative from Rome did nothing to stop this, even after visiting the mission. Throughout the siege, Father Gabriel confidently leads a mass and which ends with him carrying the monstrance. His brown-skinned flock follows him into a hail a musket fire. What is happening here is more than symbolic. The Eurcharist, inside the monstrance, is the presence of God for Father Gabriel and his flock.

“Where is God?” The answer is the same as the Gospel: among those who are abused by the empires and neglected by an indifferent and corrupt religious hierarchy. Like Jesus and the disciples in the first century, Father Gabriel and the native converts choose to die with Christ. Such is the only choice for them when the Kingdom of the World decides that the Kingdom of God has gotten in the way.

All three of these movies show something about Jesus. They all have believable Christian characters, many of whom are believably flawed. The themes of this movie, especially the Mission, present the facets of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God.

Yet, none of these movies where produced or written by the Christian Ghetto. None of them are likely found at the Christian bookstores. In fact, I think the Christian Ghetto may not like these movies, most of all, Saved.

But do we really need the Christian Ghetto when it comes to movies? What exactly is the purpose of the Christian film industry? Has it produced anything on par with movies listed here? Is there something that “Christian Movies” do for Christianity that these movies do not?

Thanks for Thinking.

The Single Most Los Angeles Thing I Have Ever Done

This saturday, I went and did something that was the most completely "Los Angeles" thing that I have done in my four and half years of living in southern California.

I attended an independent film festival.

The film festival was put on by Mosiac. It was all themed around Erwin's latest book
. I hadn't been to such an event since the festival at my undergraduate, and I loved those too.

This event, took place at "the Mayan," a themed-out downtown club in LA. There was a red carpet. There were people posing behind large frame -a kind of "living artwork"- as per the themes of the festival. There were two guys playing guitar and singing, that way we all knew it was an evangelical thing.

The energy of the place was exciting. I was there with my roommate who is working on the next spider man movie. We got our picture taken on the carpet. I got a nice bottle of "metro water" and drank it without embarrassment. There was popcorn and even Korean Tacos available for purchase. There were a few big wig hollywood people there.

The movies? Well they were all great. My favorite was a short film entitled Marbles with Thoreau. It was simple yet profound. One of those rare movies that is thought provoking in a way that children can understand. It had everything it would need to be a full length film, and it will be.

I left feeling quite happy. It was a great event and I am glad to know my church community there.

I just I hope I haven't turned into a complete Los Angeles native in doing so.

:-)

Are You in Space Horror?

Netflix steals my time, and it has stolen my time in the form of a few movies of the space horror genre, such as Event Horizon and the animated Dead Space. I’ve seen aspects of space horror in other things as well. Even Firefly had a space horror episode.

I have decided to write a blog to the people of the distant future. Hopefully, this blog will still be around in a few decades/centuries in to help those who spacefarers know the signs of space horror and how to avoid common mistakes in responding to them.

That’s right people of the future: pay close attention to this blog. If you do, you won’t have to be the last surviving crew member, desperately repairing the distress beacon as the space demons close in, in the darkest corner of your once proud ship, which now drifts aimlessly through the black, vast, uncaring void of space.

Signs that you are in Space Horror!

You are on a gritty, dimly lit, and coldly metallic space vessel. Hey, I don’t judge why you signed on. Maybe there’s a lot of work found in mining asteroids. Maybe you got posted on a new military vessel. You might even make a living hauling cargo around in a used junker. It could even be the future has a completely different view of aesthetics than we do.

Nonetheless, ships like this are magnets for the space demons. I would suggest avoiding ships like this at nearly any cost. Maybe you should give up spacefaring and become a doctor like your father wanted. Who knows? Try to get aboard ships that look like they’d be a place you’d want to live. Look for sleek, brightly light interior designs and spacious cabins. The space demons never bother with those.

In fact, the only time you should get on a gritty, dimly lit, and junker-type space vessel is if it is crewed by an unlikely gang of adventurers who sail under the guidance of a gruff, but caring, space-captain. Ships like that are usually pretty safe, but avoid snooping around for cargo compartments.

Your ship finds a large, mysterious, and seemingly inanimate object someplace. Perhaps it is a giant monument covered with mysterious runes. It may be a beacon left by an ancient civilization. It may even be experimental technology from your own government. Nonetheless, you look to the obelisk with fear and trepidation.

But whatever it is leave it alone. Things like this are likely not inanimate. They could very well hold evil toxins or something similar that will turn you and crew into space demons/zombies/mutants or whatever. Go ahead and just note in your log and sail on by. You might even consider reburying it if you unearthed it. Don’t listen to the token science guy on the ship when he insists “we must stay here and study this for blah blah blah.”

You have found a crazy person or a crew member has gone crazy. Now here is something we’ve all seen. The doctor’s got some poor guy sedated, but he keeps needing more medicine. When he wakes up, he babbles incoherently. He might be saying, “they’re going to eat our bones” or “don’t open the gate! Don’t open the gate!!” He might even be trying to cut himself or attempt to escape via an empty air lock in a panic.

Chances are, this guy is probably about the most reasonable person on the entire ship right now. If he is saying things like “must escape, must escape” or the even more ominous “they’re coming back. Don’t let them come back” he –though crazy- is giving you very good advice. If he was a stranded survivor, leave wherever it was that you found him immediately. If he is your own crew member, leave whatever area he first started going crazy in. Don’t forget to quarantine him and run a thorough scan of your ship for toxins, viruses, or little tiny robots.

You have an annoying, science officer on your ship. This character believes that he is the voice of reason in any crisis. He is always the first to say “there must be a scientific explanation of all this” or maybe “now is not the time to panic.” As I alluded to earlier, he is the guy who insists that the mysterious objects or anything else must be studying or that we must wait for more data before doing anything.

Ignore this character. His role in the space horror is to remind everyone of the hubris of science against either superior science or the supernatural. Unless carefully reined in, this character will guide you and your ship to disaster. Be happy that he is often one of the first people the space demons will go for, but of course when the space demons are already eating major characters it might already be too late.

So there it is people of the future! Avoid space horror by following these steps and many others. I wish you the best in your space faring future. Now boldly go, and don’t do anything stupid!

How the Future Is Not Like “Hackers”

At the risk (certainty) of aging myself a bit, I say that one of my favorite generational movies is Hackers. It came out in 1995, when the information age was in its nascent stages and the Internet was only understood by a cunning few. The movie presented a (then) present/near future world of computers, hipster technophiles, and computer viruses scandals. It turns out the movie is now a bit of fossil (a really cool fossil, but still a fossil), as the future is not like Hackers. Here are some examples I can think off.

Technology Ages Quickly. Technology indexes the computer age. It is hard to suppress a chuckle when I see characters in the movie get excited about “RISC architecture” or a “28.8 BPS modem.” The low resolution of many of the computers also shocks modern day computer users. Those screens back then could fit into about two square inches of most monitors today –which are now all flat panel, LCD, or plasma or anything but a CRT.

Oh, and the movie had floppy discs. What the fuck?

Nobody goes to arcades. In the beginning of the movie, the characters go to some raverish establishment where they eat greasy food, play arcade games, and discuss how “1337” (leet) they are. While the greasy food and self-gratification remain intimate parts of techie culture, nobody goes to arcades to play videogames.

Instead, people set up their desktops with the latest glowly equipment in their dark apartments/relative’s basements and hook up to the internet to play World of Warcraft. Alternately, they might have several friends over to play Wii, Xbox, or similar console. These are also played on anything other than a CRT.

If arcades do exist, and they are very rare if they do, they exist as internet cafes. They are nothing like what is portrayed in Hackers.

Shows like “Hack the Planet” are not on cable-access TV. At one point in the movie, the characters sit around a couch and watch “Hack the Planet” with metro-sexual hosts Razor and Blade. While I am certain that such shows exist, I am pretty sure they are on youtube. In fact, as far as techie culture goes, I think the television is more or less a dead medium. The most tech savvy people I know only have cable if it bundles with their internet access. When they do watch TV, it is probably Netflix, downloaded movies, or TiVo. The thought of actually scheduling a time to sit down and watch Cable access is unheard of.

Pay phones do not exist. Throughout the movie, pay phones are used not only to make calls, but to dial into the internet at remote locations to do nifty works of hacking. Now, it is quite apparent that pay phones are dead. There is no need to use a tape recorder to hack yourself some long distance calls if you have skype. There is no need to dial into the internet when every third café has wireless internet. There’s no need use them to make calls if you have cell phone –which everybody does.

I suppose if you’re the kind of hacker that knows how to hack a payphone, you have some serious street credibility with hacker culture. Outside of that; who cares?

Hackers do not courageously crusade against evil corporations and government agencies, who attempt to victimize them. The situation has changed over the years. These days, hackers are working for the evil corporations and government agencies.

Thanks for reading.

"Saved!" and the Good Samaritan

One of my favorite movies, surely and older movie by now, is the teen satire Saved! which I watched for the first time back in College. I realized then, and I still think now, that movie is not some “anti-Christian” movie. I think of it more like modern day parable of the good Samaritan. If the movie offends you, you should think carefully why.

The Parable

Let’s start with the Gospel of Luke. A lawyer asks Jesus a question, and Jesus answers with the parable.

25And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" 27And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 28And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." 29But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Notice how this parable is set up. The Lawyer has an idea of what it is he is supposed to do, but in the fashion of lawyers, he is attempting to be as specific with the letter of the law so he can minimally fulfill the law. The question “who is my neighbor” is only half-way sincere.

Jesus answers:

30Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31"And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32"Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33"But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35"On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' 36"Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" 37And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

Source

There are two things that we need to realize about this parable. First, is how that lawyer viewed the Pharisees and the Levites. Secondly, how that lawyer viewed the Samaritans.

As good Christians, we all know that a Pharisees and Levites were bad people, but that is our perspective. That little lawyer probably had quite the opposite view. In his day, a Pharisee or a Levite was someone who was revered in the same way we revere successful ministers, missionaries, authors and any other type of clergy are today. The Samaritan, as viewed by the Jewish community at the time, were decidedly outside the fold of the approved, morally-upright, and spiritually approved group. They were derided for the ethnicity and for not worship God in the way approved by the Pharisees and Levites. The Samaritans were considered so dirty, that the Lawyer couldn’t even bring himself to say “the Samaritan” at the end of this exchange.

This is why this parable is so particularly penetrating. Jesus is using this surprise and this scandal to gently push through the lawyer’s half-sincere question about ethics. Jesus is saying quite a bit here. First, goodness is not automatic when you are part of the approved community. On the flipside, doing good is not the domain of a group. Jesus tells the lawyer, who is well aware that he belongs to approved group, to be like that outcast who is doing the right thing. If you know what’s right, stop asking questions and do what is right.

Saved! (?)

If you haven’t seen “Saved!”, I recommend simply scrolling down to the bottom of this review, buying it, and then watching it. Don’t read the spoilers that are about to come.

The story of saved is set up in a similar way that the parable is. The main protagonist is Mary, who is clearly in the approved group of the conservative, fundamentalist, Christians. She is part of the “Christian Jewels” a singing group at her school. Her mom is on every church board meeting and participates in every activity. She knows Pastor Skip, the school youth minister. She has a wonderful pair of Christian friends namely Hilary and Veronica. Those who are outside the approved group are Hilary’s brother Roland and the rebel Jewish girl Cassandra.
The plot takes off when Mary has sex with her boyfriend in order to restore him to heterosexuality. She finds out that she is pregnant and decides to keep both her shame and her pregnancy to herself. Throughout the story, she becomes increasingly withdrawn from her friends and eventually experiences a crisis of faith. It is summed up best when she stares at cross at her school and utters several curse words ending with, “God Damn.”

It is here that we begin to see the failures of the modern day Pharisees and Levites. Hilary reacts to Mary’s despondency out of spite and pride –even outcasting Mary from the Christian Jewels. There are hints of Veronica own sexual misconduct at church camps. Pastor Skip, though not living with his wife, is in a sham of marriage that is blindingly apparent to his own son, Patrick. Her mother shows her lack of openness and lack of assurances towards Mary when Mary begins to reach out. When Mary’s pregnancy is finally revealed, her mom intends to send her away to a “Mercy House.” Additionally, the mother’s own repressed sexuality reveals her ulterior motives for her church involvement. Everyone is quick to judge and slow to understand. The entire Christian cast displays acts of spite, hypocrisy, and shallowness.

Not so with the movie’s two (maybe three?) Samaritans. Cassandra, the rule-defying rebel, is the first to realize that Mary is pregnant. She gently, but persistently, presses Mary on the issue until Mary relents. She and Rolond help Mary go shopping for pregnancy clothes. The group eventually becomes friends. They are later framed by Hilary and others and kicked out of school. On prom night, these two plan an escape for Mary and buy her a prom dress. Patrick, Skip’s son, becomes Mary’s date and is the third person to accept Mary -pregnancy and all.

Who was Mary’s neighbor? It is quite clear in the movie who. Those cynical outcasts show greater mercy and understanding towards Mary than any of the “spiritually approved” group. Like the Pharisees and the Levites, the spiritually upright demonstrate little more than a desire to avoid the issue of the person in need, but going a step further in actually harming Mary.

Regarding the Christians who disliked this movie, I think a call for concern is in order. Such a movie can be dismissed easily as anti-Christian, but this would be missing the point. If Christians feel offended by such a depiction of Christians, then maybe it is time to think about why those depictions exist. Why get upset about such a film or give it a superficial examination about its message? Why not instead see who truly acts as the neighbor and then go and do likewise.?

Thanks for reading.

Old Movies that I Like

I once said that Netflix was trying to steal my time. In truth, it has succeeded. Over the last couple of months I’ve seen plenty of movies and TV shows. Among them, are many “classics” that I really enjoyed. Here is a small list.

The Big Combo This is the first movie I have ever seen that is truly part of the Film Noir category. The movie was low-budget even by 1950’s standards, but the shadows, the camera work, and the characters all made up for it. You really hate the villain and grow to sympathize with the hero. The story had plenty of unexpected twists and turns without becoming cheesy or unbelievable. It was a great watch.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Personally, I think this move might be better entitled, “The Wicked, the Desperately Stupid, and the Morally Tolerable.” I am convinced that when this movie was released the average American had a longer attention span. The movie is slow to start, very episodic, and contains many loooooong draw-out scenes set to music. I do not think if this movie came out today if it would receive such a great following. Nonetheless, I enjoyed this movie as well, and recommend it for anyone who knows how to concentrate.

A Man for All Seasons. I thought this movie was well-cast, and well played. It was one of those movies that you watch and you ask yourself, “Why am I not watching this as a great play?” The relevance of the religious aspect of the film (and Thomas More’s life) go well beyond Catholicism. It asks, “How can a pure and righteous man live in the worldly mess of politics?” The answer is, “he can’t.” This is probably not a great movie for Anglicans or Christians who hope to hold or influence public office.

The Graduate besides the fact that I now understand certain references in the Simpsons and Wayne’s world, this movie demands only one comment. No body’s love life could possibly be more complicated.

The Sky is Falling, Our Money is Worthless, and the Baby Boomers have Enslaved us All

I recently watched the informative, yet scary, documentary I.O.U.S.A.. I don’t like sounding like I am appealing to fear, but this documentary bothered me quite a bit. Looks like I get to add one more reason to live abroad a few years: this country is going broke.

The film, which was based on a book entitled Empire of Debt, argues four basic points. The United States government does not balance a budget –ever; Americans as individuals do not save money, we consume more trade goods than we export, and our leadership does not do a whole lot about it. The documentary gets into details such as the difference between “monetary” and “fiscal” policy, the looting of social security, “financial warfare,” and the looming economic oblivion. Surprisingly, the movie does not thump stereo-typical “reaganomics” or other Republican planks.

It also had many relevant personalities in the movie. Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet and many others had their own time. They even interviewed a Chinese businessman.

The thing that struck me most about the movie was the economic prospects of my generation. While hindsight is 20/20, many politicians back in 60s and 70s arguing that the policies enacted in their time would force the next generation to pay for it. Now, we’re starting to deal with some of those predictions coming true. There will be no social security for our generation, yet we will still be expected to pay for the boomers as they retire.

Our grandparent’s generation worked their knuckles dry to make the American dream for their children. Our parent’s generation decided to borrow from our piggy banks. (Thanks a lot, hippies. Get a job.) Many of the people in the documentary asserted again and again that is immoral.

Another thing that bothered me is that there were a few interviewees in the documentary who had to resign (or were fired from) government positions because of differences of opinion with the administrations. Such might be evident of the “leadership deficient” described in the movie. Many of friends feel like “political atheists” in the sense that we do not have faith in our political system. Maybe we are over the top, but I think more than a few twenty-somethings do not feel that they are represented.

Who is John Galt?

But watch the documentary. Those of you with Netflix have no excuse. It will either motivate you to work very, very hard, and/or emigrate. Either way, people will start thinking long term again.

Star Trek: The Apocryphal Movie

Last night, I went to see the latest Star Trek movie. Did I like it? Mostly. I thought it was a good movie, though not without its problems for sure. Overall, I liked it in a similar way I liked the Smashing Pumpkins’ “Adore” album. That album was pretty good, but it was not really the Smashing Pumpkins sound I grew to like. So this movie was a well done, but it did not feel like Star Trek.

There were a lot of things that I liked. I loved young Kirk for instance. From the opening scene to the end of the movie, I thought he was well done. I find it totally believable that he would do stunts like steal the car, get into a fight at the bar, make out with the green alien girl, and other fun romps of a brash young military cadet. Little Spock was well done too. I liked the Vulcan academy of his childhood, how different both his parent’s were, and especially his refusal to enter into the Vulcan science academy. Seeing the characters as youngsters I think was a bold move. Overall it was successful. Additionally, as I will explain later, it was also a great selling point.

The interaction between these two characters was also true to the original series.
I only watched “Search for Spock” a few years ago. The friendship between the two men in this movie and that movie seemed pretty accurate to me.

I can’t complain about the special effects either. They were well executed without being gratuitous. The excitement of the chase scenes and the starship design was eye-catching enough to be a point in the movie’s favor. It was not, for instance, Star Wars episode I, in which special effects were simply a long video-game/demo reel. No, in this movie the CGI served its purpose. It helped create a convincing illusion of life in space. Although I admit, I totally expected young Kirk to meet Luke Skywalker when he ran into that ice cave. Live long and prosper my young padawan!

There were, however, some major plot-hole/logic problems with the movie. First, what’s up with the Romulans? The last Romulans I remember seeing were the Deep Space Nine Romulans in which they were all so bad-ass, cultured, and refined that they knew they earned the right to be a little smug around say –the Klingons. Yet these Romulans were basically a band of pirate-thugs that had lost any sense of refinement from the Romulan Empire. Maybe that was the point. After all, they did get their planet destroyed. It wasn’t made clear in the movie that this was the case though.

Another problem I had was with Sovereign, -I mean the Romulan pirate/mining ship. Why is it so decked out with weapons? According to the movie, this ship followed future Spock into the black hole immediately, so it is not as if they could’ve retro-fitted it. I can’t think of any sci-fi canon in which cargo ships are built for war. What’s with the size? It dwarfed the federation flagship. Does this ship do its mining by hauling entire moons to Romulus or something? It simply didn’t make any sense to me. Sorry!

The larger questions I have with the movie have to do with the overall plot of the movie. Think of all the things that made the movie good. Are these the things we expect from a Star Trek movie? Star Trek movies normally have overtones of politics, philosophy, and even (in DS9) religion. This movie was reduced to action/adventure. I am fairly certain that this could’ve been a random sci-fi movie with different characters and names and it would’ve been just as fine.

This leads me to my final point. This movie cannot be canonical. For if it is, everything from the inception of the original series must be changed. I think what this movie was a concession that Star Trek is a dead franchise.* The movie was an attempt to re-package the old canon for a newer generation of sci-fi kids. This is why we have young Kirk and young Spock. They’re as hip as the cast of Hereos and Lost! Someone high up there must’ve said, “awww fuck it. We can’t move foreward with the canon anymore. Let’s just make a lot of money. Do you think Nimoy will go for it?”

So there it is. Star Trek: The Apocyrpha. Good movie. Fun to watch and well worth seeing in theaters. But if you are old enough to remember movies like “Star Trek VI” or even “First Contact” for that matter, do not expect to see a “Star Trek” movie.

Thanks for reading.

---------------
*In my humble opinion, I think there is still room to make Star Trek within the canon. Deep Space Nine left the creators a lot of options, but I personally couldn’t see anything centered on the federation anymore. Could we still have Star Trek centered on other strange new worlds and new civilizations?

“WATCHMEN” for the Aesthetically Challenged

Initially, with this blog entry, I thought that I’d just run my review of it and compare to the novel, but yesterday on Theologyweb I came across this soapbox by Debbie Schlussel, whoever she is. Instead of doing a standard review, I think I will review her review. Hopefully, after this we can all learn how not to understand a film -especially an adaptation.

Schlussel begins opens her review with “If you take your kids to see 'Watchmen,' you're a moron.” She says it is marketed to kids since it has action figures, and has a heroic looking trailer. Throughout the review, she complains of scenes clearly not good for children, such as the lesbian kiss, Dr. Manhatten’s male member, the sex scene, and the bloodshed.

To borrow the catch line of different internet movie pundit, ”I’m confused.”

Who claimed that Watchmen was intended for children? I don’t think Alan Moore ever did. Action figures mean it is marketed for kids? But adults, specifically eccentric and geeky ones, purchase those too. In fact, those action figures are advertised to have ”presentation bases”. Something like that indicates that these are more collector’s items for the early 20s eccentric, not toys for your fifth grader.

What about a “heroic trailer”? Did we watch the same one? The mood, the music, and Rorschach’s misanthropic quote (“I’ll look down and whisper ‘no’”) indicated to me that this wasn’t a normal hero movie. I don’t think there is a lot of reason to believe that Alan Moore or Hollywood thought this was a movie (or book) for kids. I have a hard time believing that Watchmen was marketed as such, besides (as Schlussel mentioned) it had an “R” rating.

In summary so far, Schlussel’s complaints about the movie stem largely about it being inappropriate for children. Yet neither the book nor the movie is intended for children. From here, I must invoke a largely controversial, a little esoteric, and difficult to understand principle of interpretation:

Artistic works not intended for children, should not be evaluated on whether or not they are “good for children.”

Everyone understand? Good. Moving on.

The next complaint leveled against WATCHMEN is that it “isn't a superhero movie at all.” Also, she apparently thinks that if it might be a “conservative movie” as 300 was, but the movie still falls short of that standard. She explains:

A few lines of dialogue by the character "Rorschach" deriding "liberals and intellectuals" doesn't excuse the nearly three hours of poison here. In fact, the movie kind of has a peacenik-themed ending and "message" regarding nuclear weapons. If this move is "conservative," who the heck needs liberal?

Again, ”I’m confused.”

Who said that this was a traditional super hero movie? This movie and book are intended to be a dark parody of the super hero concept. Creator Alan Moore explained:

"I suppose I was just thinking, 'That'd be a good way to start a comic book: have a famous super-hero found dead.' As the mystery unraveled, we would be led deeper and deeper into the real heart of this super-hero's world, and show a reality that was very different to the general public image of the super-hero."

It was supposed to break the expectations of the genre. Her whining in this matter is therefore part of the work’s merit. This complaint is about as a bad as the gripe that “The Village” wasn’t a horror movie.

And what’s this about WATCHMEN not being conservative? Sure, Rorschach was a conservative character, but again she is judging the movie by something other than its intentions. If someone doesn’t like a movie because it grates with your political ideology, that’s fine. But how does it make sense to evaluate a story by not supporting politics it never claimed to endorse?

Finally, Schlussel gets to the movie’s alternate history. There are plenty of things that are changed, such as an American victory in Vietnam, Nixon’s fifth term, and Ronald Reagan running for president in 88. She slams all of this with, “I'm so amazed at this "high-brow art" of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be ‘artistic,’ and get the drooling of the critics.”

WATCHMEN is not a history book. WATCHMEN is a work of fiction. What next? Complain about Lord of the Rings because wizards aren’t real? I remember when 300 came out in theaters. I didn’t go see it because, historically speaking, I hardly think that the Spartans had a society worth defending. Later, I saw the movie and realized “Oh, this isn’t supposed to be a by-the-book, historical dramatization. It’s a movie based on a comic book.”

So basically what has happened in this review is that someone saw the movie with the wrong expectations. The movie is not supposed to be anything she demands that it should. It is not a kid’s movie, a traditional super hero movie, a conservative movie, or a historical movie. Rather, it is supposed alternate history, a critique of “Reaganism,” and the death knell of super heroes –all of which are themes for adults.

On a personal note…

It should be said that many people have already emailed Schlussel explaining that she doesn’t understand the background, and otherwise didn’t understand the story. After even admitting that she has not read, and does not intend to examine the source material, she goes on a hateful, name-calling rant (complete with a reductio ad hitlerum):

You're a bunch of dummies with no moral compass, but liking this stupid comic book which pretends violence and the depraved is "edgy" or "sophisticated," makes you feel smart. When you're actually quite stupid. But now, with this movie, you've got pretentious stupidity. You don't realize you're still just as dumb, your IQ just as low and probably lower.

While I didn’t email her myself, I have to take some offense to being compared to one of the future members of Idiocracy, a Roman who watched the Christians (my team!) fight animals, or otherwise getting called barbaric and/or “fanatic.”

Schlussel says, “It's frankly hilarious to read the arrogance of the ignorami.” Somehow, in reading her review, I wasn’t laughing.