Wolfgang Petersen Quits Playing "Ender's Game"
Here's today's Overstreet Quiz Question:
Jeffrey Overstreet has nieces and nephews named after which of the following fantasy-novel characters?
- Ender of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game
- Daeneris of George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
- Phinehas of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter stories
- Atreides - the family name of the messianic Paul in Frank Herbert's Dune
- Auralia of Jeffrey's own novel Auralia's Colors
Make your guess!
And, while this should not influence your answer, note io9's report that Wolfgang Petersen is no longer working on an adaptation of Ender's Game. Hmmm... if I recall correctly, Ron Howard, M. Night Shyamalan, and Wolfgang Petersen have all, at one time or another, been connected to this project.
Who would you choose as the ideal director for Ender's Game?
Star Wars, Episode Three - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
[This review was originally published at Christianity Today.]
•
To steal a phrase from a certain dark lord, “This will be a day long remembered.”
Star Wars, Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith, the fastest Star Wars film ever built, packs in more action than its two predecessors — The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones — combined. The opening crawl begins with the word “War!” and, quicker than you can say “Into the garbage chute, flyboy!”, two things become clear:
- This is not going to be another episode in which action only occasionally interrupts people standing around and discussing politics. The prequels have suffered heavy laser blasts from both critics and fans for lacking the snappy dialogue and the high-stakes action of Episodes Four, Five, and Six. While Sith is still sorely lacking, it’s a big improvement on its two predecessors.
- Lucas was right to warn us that Sith wouldn’t be kid-friendly. Beheadings, severed hands, third-degree burns … if there’s a bright center to the universe, you’re in the movie that it’s farthest from. Is this gratuitous violence? No. These sometimes gruesome scenes are necessary to portray the temporary triumph of evil while “good guys” suffer the wages of their sins.
ACTION!
It’s not all doom and gloom, though. Strap yourselves in! Sith jumps into lightspeed action from the get-go. In the opening shot (an obvious nod to A New Hope), we’re plunged headlong into a chaotic combat zone. The Separatist Alliance wickedly assaults Republic ships in the skies over Coruscant, the Republic’s failing heart. Early manifestations of X-Wings, TIE fighters, and Star Destroyers pyromaniacally careen and collide in the biggest “star war” adrenalin-rush since the Death Star battle of ’77, marred only by its robbery of cockpit banter from previous films. (Han Solo should sue.)
In the thick of things, young Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and his Jedi mentor Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) strive to rescue Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), who has been kidnapped by a warlord called General Grievous. Part-monster, part machine, Grievous looks like a junkyard Transformer, sounds like a Russian war veteran with smoker’s lung, and wields several lightsabers at once. He also has a tendency to turn tail and run when he meets a real threat… like Skywalker.
Anakin, despite his new unruly hairdo, has become more mature and responsible since Attack of the Clones. Obi-Wan, who’s “not brave enough for politics,” grins like a proud uncle and lets Anakin go his own way to become a Jedi “poster boy” amongst Republic Senators. But away from the spotlight, Anakin seeks covert liaisons with his secret, and pregnant, wife Padmé (Natalie Portman). “Our baby is a blessing,” says Padmé, and Anakin agrees that the news is “the happiest moment of my life.”
Dark dreams disrupt Anakin’s bliss, convincing him that Padmé is in danger. Yoda, who does double-duty here as a Jedi therapist and a sweatsuit-wearing action hero, warns Anakin: “The fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side. Attachment leads to jealousy — the shadow of greed this is.” He exhorts Anakin to surrender anything he fears to lose, declaring that “Death is a natural part of life.”
But Anakin’s battle against fear, jealousy, and greed is — as we all know — a losing one. His loyalties are divided. The Jedi distrust him, lecture him, and show little concern for his dark premonitions, while Palpatine showers Anakin with flattery. The stage is set for the last temptation of Skywalker. Determined to protect Padmé, he makes a Faustian bargain.
Meanwhile, Darth Sidious is baiting the democratic Republic to vote for its own destruction. Jedi Master Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) smells trouble brewing, but he’s never heard of “Order 66,” the satanic-sounding trap that will spring upon the Jedi. All that remains is for the nefarious Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) to enable Anakin’s ascent to power at the right hand of a Sith lord.
CULMINATION!
You can feel the Republic’s infrastructure crumbling. Lucas takes a note from The Godfather in a montage of Jedi knights falling victim to traps (a sequence that would have carried much more weight if only viewers had come to know these Jedi, see them in their full glory, and comprehend the pain of their downfall). Despite another exhibition of Yoda’s “Forcibility” against his foes, there will be no one to stop them this time. As in The Return of the King, the drama descends into a volcanic abyss for the culminating struggle of Teacher versus Mentor. Call it the saga’s “Darth nadir.”
Lucas’s greatest success in Revenge of the Sith is this: We can’t help but sympathize with Anakin as he surrenders to the Dark Side. Lo and behold, Darth Vader did not strive to be a heartless villain. He became one by trying to protect the one he loved, going blind to the greater good in the process. The stakes are finally high enough to earn gasps, and the ensuing tragedy is almost Shakespearean. Three intensely emotional lightsaber showdowns — two of which invert the famous Luke/Vader/Emperor face-off of Return of the Jedi, and another that severs bonds of friendship — stir up some of the operatic drama we remember from duels in Empire and Jedi. We’re drawn, at last, to the edges of our seats.
Simultaneously, Lucas discovers what actors are for… acting! He throws a switch, and suddenly Christensen, Portman, and McGregor come alive, emoting as if things really matter.
Lucas choreographs them through a virtuosic sequence culminating in the descent of a devil who resembles specters that lurked in The Seventh Seal, The Fellowship of the Ring, and The Passion of the Christ. As Sidious endeavors to build a better monster, we’re suddenly in the territory of Frankenstein. Intercut with these culminating visions of darkness and deformity are images of grief, despair, and finally, a glimmer of hope. With all of the dark drama of Titanic sinking, Darth Vader rises. The power of myth surges through the veins of the saga again just as it did in the glory days.
We’re sent off in a rush of increasingly familiar characters (Tarkin!), corridors (the blockade runner!), and other surprises. Thus, the circle is now complete, and our questions — most of them, anyway — are finally answered.
But new questions are sure to linger in moviegoers’ minds….
QUESTIONS!
Did Lucas intend Sith to be a commentary on contemporary politics? He denies it, but you’ll wonder. Padmé watches the Republic crumble, and remarks, “So this is how liberty ends — to thunderous applause.” Dooku and Grievous resemble a recently overthrown warlord and a smash-and-run terrorist, both hunted by an elected leader armed with emergency executive powers. Something’s familiar when Anakin shouts, “If you’re not for me, then you’re my enemy!”
Beyond the politics, there’s a powerfully provocative spiritual subtext. Few tales of pride have led to harder falls. But Anakin isn’t just arrogant; he’s suffering from alienation caused by the insensitivity and neglect of his Jedi “fathers.” Like Gladiator’s villain, he strikes because he’s been treated with contempt and denied the love he desires. And like The Godfather’s Michael Corleone, he’s sold his soul to gain power and ensure his family’s safety. Lucas vividly illustrates that a violent man convinced of his own righteousness is dangerous indeed. But does he realize that his precious Jedi illustrate the cost of callous leadership?
Deciding that desirable ends justify sinister means, Anakin writes off the Jedi as “evil.” Obi-Wan answers, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes!” Does Obi-Wan mean that there are no absolutes? If so, then why does he absolutely disagree with Anakin’s perspective? Or perhaps he means that it’s dangerous to make oversimplifications. If so, that’s a lesson Kenobi forgets in later episodes. Luke must defy Obi-Wan in Return of the Jedi to prove that Vader is not “absolutely” evil.
And what about the Force? It’s increasingly hard to believe that this invisible power actually “binds the galaxy together” in the end. For years, Christian moviegoers have debated whether “the Force” might be a good metaphor for God. This film seals the deal — the Force is not good enough to save the universe. It remains, in the end, something that both the Jedi and the Sith treat as a commodity, something we should get and learn to manipulate for our own purposes, good or evil.
Episode Two’s references to “the will of the Force” suggest that this power is sentient, but nobody ever stops to wonder what that “will” might be. In The Lord of the Rings and Raiders of the Lost Ark, there was “another will at work,” an Authority to serve, a Higher Being intervening to redeem a mess made by well-intentioned but insufficient heroes. In Star Wars, no one asks any Higher Power for help. Thus, the galaxy seems pretty much doomed, because — Jedi and Sith alike — they’re all corrupt. There’s apparently no Higher Power they believe can save them — not even in the afterlife. They’re on their own.
Moreover, it’s bewildering to hear Yoda nonchalantly claim that a Jedi should reject “attachments.” Doesn’t Luke save the galaxy in Episodes Five and Six by rejecting that philosophy and serving his “attachment” to Han, Leia, and ultimately his father? Even worse, Yoda declares that “death is natural” and that we should not let it trouble us. Why, then, is he distraught over the corpses of murdered colleagues? Death is unnatural . . . it was not a part of God’s plan for creation. It’s a natural part of a fallen world, yes, but we recoil from it and grieve over it because it is a flaw, not an ideal. It’s evidence that the world needs of a bold, benevolent redeemer, not an insensitive, dispassionate savior.
AGGRAVATION!
You’re unlikely to hear much discussion of these things. Star Wars fans are sticklers for detail, and it’s not wise to upset a fanboy. Sith gives them plenty to complain about.
Disgruntled fans will target the bland screenwriting. For every brilliant action scene, there’s a spectacularly lame punchline that any moviegoer on the planet could improve upon. Jedi may be masters of stuffy diplomacy, but Han Solo and Princess Leia could teach them about smart, sarcastic comebacks. Anakin and Padme’s “romantic” exchanges are the stuff of cheap teen romance novels. It’s painful to hear Yoda, so eloquently mysterious in The Empire Strikes Back, respond to the Emperor’s threats by quipping, “Not if anything to say about it I have!” No wonder the Republic collapsed.
Continuity problems will drive perfectionists to distraction: “In Episode Six, Princess Leia said she could remember her mother. How could that be?” “Why doesn’t Obi-Wan recognize Threepio and R2D2 in A New Hope?” “Vader could sense that Luke was his son, but not that Leia was his daughter?” Those who care about such things seem to have been made to suffer.
A special edition with severe revisions may be necessary to improve some serious errors in judgment. Obi-Wan’s poorly animated reptilian steed should never have escaped the animator’s computer. Whoever taught Wookies to impersonate Tarzan… terminate him, immediately. Darth Vader’s arrival onscreen is a mix of brilliance and lunacy — the helmet is reverently introduced, but Vader’s first steps are awkward and embarrassing.
Perhaps the most distressing development is the way in which constant revelations of implausible interconnections keep shrinking this galaxy into something resembling Mr. Lucas’s Neighborhood. Darth is Luke’s father, Leia is Luke’s sister, Boba Fett’s papa was the original stormtrooper, and that jittery protocol droid was Vader’s childhood project. Now we learn that another popular hero, whose appearance here is entirely gratuitous, has been Yoda’s buddy all along. What will the upcoming Star Wars television series reveal? That Han Solo was Aunt Beru’s illegitimate son? That a young Jabba crawled out of Jar-Jar’s nose?
Dwelling on these details, you can dismantle the whole saga, just as Luke Skywalker wiped out the Death Star by bulls-eyeing a vulnerable spot. But we shouldn’t condemn the whole enterprise for a few loose screws. While it falls short of Four and Five, Episode Three is easily as compelling as the climactic Return of the Jedi, and it’s definitely the most visually enthralling installment. It's not as good as I hoped it would be, but it's far better than I expected.
APPRECIATION!
Some gratitude is in order. Through Star Wars, Lucas revolutionized many aspects of filmmaking. He wove mythologies, religions, cliffhangers, and Akira Kurosawa films together into a fascinating hybrid. He emphasized that spiritual realities are as important as material realities. A parade of popular directors — James Cameron, Michael Bay, the Wachowskis, Peter Jackson — have built careers out of resources he invented. And Star Wars lingo has influenced language from the playground to the White House. For fans and everyone else, these movies have altered the world, usually for the better.
So, is this truly the end of Star Wars? “Difficult to see. Always in motion the future is.” Until we know, let’s be thankful for an unforgettable journey and a story that, like any great myth, gives us glimpses “through a glass darkly” of things essential and true. Virtue, courage, patience, peace, self-control, love … the Good Side are they. To borrow a line from Obi-Wan, “We’ve taken our first steps into a larger world.”
Superman Returns (2006)
No multi-bazillion-dollar Hollywood budget can match the power of a small dog on the big screen. A studio can spend a fortune on spectacular special effects, and yet a little four-legged co-star can steal the show by walking across the stage and yipping adorably.
In the year’s most anticipated movie — the hugely expensive Superman Returns, the first Man of Steel movie since 1978 — the most memorable, delightful, and unexpected moment in the movie belongs to…
… a Pomeranian.
Something is terribly wrong here.
SINGER’S PASSION
Director Bryan Singer was not familiar with the X-Men until he had the opportunity to make a movie about them. And he did a great job, starting an excellent comic book franchise with two solid films. He became a hero to X-Men fans. And he raised the bar for comic book movies, which may have inspired the filmmakers behind Spider-man 2 and Batman Begins to greatness. Singer's films found character and personality behind the superpowers. They took on tough, contemporary questions with intelligence and meaningful metaphors. And they boasted some excellent performances.
But here, rejuvenating the franchise of his favorite comic book character, Singer has made a film that delivers spectacular action, but baffles the brain, and comes up far short with its cast.
Superman Returns is about a hero with very little personality, who's in love with a bland and forgettable woman. He faces a villain who fails to frighten us. And while he aims to save the world, he's really responsible for the danger that the world is in.
And that's a pack of problems.
Many Superman fans have been hoping Singer would lift the character and the tradition out of the wreckage of the lamentable Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, and restore it to the glory of Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman: The Movie. Donner’s original film is still a barrel of fun. It’s memorable as much for its comedy as its groundbreaking special effects and its likeable cast. While I hear from the experts that Singer’s Superman Returns has bested the terrible sequels — wild dogs tried to drag me to the video store to rent them, but I fought them off — this new movie is still inferior to the original.
I applaud the impressive visual effects and sound design of Superman Returns — they do what we expect summer blockbusters to do. There are a couple of scenes that develop some tangible, nerve-wracking tension. One involves the simultaneous rescue of a troubled space shuttle and a plummeting passenger plane. The other takes place during a piano duet, as unlikely as it sounds. None of the action scenes in Singer's X-Men films come close to this level of spectacle.
And Singer’s most surprising accomplishment is to pass the Super-torch to an actor who will prevent backlash from Christopher Reeve fans. Brandon Routh looks the part, so the transition is fairly smooth.
But as soon as you start thinking about the storyline of Superman Returns, everything starts falling apart.
WHAT KIND OF HERO IS SUPERMAN?
I'm in the minority, finding fault with the movie. Superman Returns has dazzled and delighted most critics. Many of the reviews are pumped up with nostalgia. Eva Marie Saint and Marlon Brando are in a movie together again! The dying widow who gives Lex Luthor a fortune is played by the Lois Lane of the 1950s television series! Listen — that's John Williams's 1978 theme music!
And some Christian film critics are giving the film high marks because they're excited to recognize a clearly-marked Christ figure.
But these aspects steer us away from more important questions: Is Superman Returns a good story? If it’s such a great Christ allegory, what does it suggest about the character of a savior? Is it really a meaningful story?
Superman Returns fumbles around, looking for a theme, and never really finds one. The first possible theme is broadcast in the opening scene, when we look down at a Scrabble-board that highlights the word "ALIENATION." And then it's about family, and fidelity, and faith, and... It's about so many things that it never really finds a focus.
Alienation? Superman's loneliness is partly his own fault. He's so busy busy answering his questions about his past, and rushing off to save random people in peril, that he just can't devote himself to a relationship. While we're made to feel sorry for this poor, misunderstood, lonely hero, let's face it... he chooses to be a lone hero.
Thus, the alienation theme doesn't really ring true. And why bother? Singer explored the same theme far more profoundly in the X-Men films. (In retrospect, I wish Singer had finished that trilogy. The storytelling was stronger, the characters were far more interesting when he was at the helm. If Singer can revive Superman two decades after it fizzled, perhaps he can save the X-Men sometime soon.)
So, what about "saving the world"? Is that the theme of this film?
If so, Superman's not doing a very good job of that either. Like any good superhero, he busies himself saving people from crises. But the movie raises our expectations by reminding us, through the voice of his father Jor-El (Marlon Brando), that Superman is not supposed to save the world single-handedly. He's supposed to “light the way” for humankind to follow his example. And Superman never lives up to that bold charge. He’s too busy leaping buildings and preventing doomed vehicles from blowing up to show us "the way." If Superman is a “Christ figure,” why is he behaving like a typical American hero who operates above the law, showing us all that we should endeavor to save the world independently rather than cooperatively?
If Superman really wants to save the world, he should learn to hide those weapons of mass destruction that he brought to earth. While he's off chasing his question, the bad guys are getting hold of his super-trinkets and using them to cause great civil unrest. In other words, the world is in trouble thanks to Superman's carelessness.
How about "true love"? Is that what the film is about?
If so, Superman is lacking there too. The film picks up where Superman 2 left off. Superman has just made his relationship with Lois Lane official, in a carnal sense, and then he up and flew away. He departed Planet Earth without even saying goodbye to Lois. This left her in a terrible state, and Planet Earth, which he had sought to serve, was left vulnerable. In my mind, Lois has every right to be angry and to move on to another boyfriend.
By the end of this film, I have no doubt that Superman can catch a falling aircraft, but I have serious doubts that he can commit himself to another person or fulfill the responsibilities of a relationship. He never should have started one in the first place.
We're supposed to hope that he and Lois Lane can work things out. But personally, I found Richard White, Lois Lane's new boyfriend, to be far more sympathetic and courageous than Superman. In Superman's day-to-day routine, preventing accidents and saving plummeting planes, he's not at great personal risk. It's not costing him. He doesn't have much to lose. Richard, on the other hand, dearly loves Lois Lane and the five-year-old child who depends on them. He's dependable. He pays for his commitments. He has everything to lose. And he makes some brave moves before the film is over that show true risk, courage, and selflessness. This guy, played with surprising emotion and energy by James Marsden, is super.
CAST PROBLEMS
Superman’s heroism isn’t the only problem in the film. The cast bringing this comic to life make things worse.
Brandon Routh strikes memorable iconic poses, and he throws himself whole-heartedly into the action. But his Man of Steel lacks personality. There's no discernible intelligence beyond the brawn, just a sharp-looking Reeve-alike. The script gives him very little help. I think the much-harassed Hayden Christensen did more with less in the Star Wars prequels than Routh does here.
Similarly, Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane is D.O.A. Previous Lois Lanes — Margot Kidder, Teri Hatcher — showed personality and spirit. And they were the right age. Kate Bosworth looks young enough to be Lane's daughter. And she shows no range here, more lame than Lane. I have to take it on faith that she won a Pulitzer for her essay “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman,” but it’s easier for me to believe that Superman can leap a building in a single bound.
Why does Superman go for her? Where’s the spark that would make Lois stand from all of the other desperate women the Man of Steel encounters? I didn't see it, and I didn't sense any chemistry between the two of them. Bosworth makes a great cosmetics spokesmodel, but she doesn't come across as a woman of character and strength.
Kevin Spacey is, well, Kevin Spacey, playing the part of Lex Luthor. Whereas Gene Hackman created a bold new persona for the famous comic book villain in 1978, effectively turning the film into a comedy, Spacey is content to do his usual smug, self-satisfied shtick, playing the part of a bad guy who is clearly out of his mind. His wicked plan consists of a super-sized real estate maneuver. He thinks he can grow a whole new continent and declare himself its king. How can he possibly think he’ll stand to gain from his wickedness? What's to stop the U.S. military from executing a swift regime change? Luthor isn't just lacking in super-powers... he's lacking a brain. A Superman movie needs a far more interesting and dangerous villain.
As Luthor’s assistant Kitty Kowalski, Parker Posey is funny and entertaining. She’s one of my favorite big screen comediennes. But here, her personality is stifled by her costumes and her pet Pomeranians. Here’s a simple rule: If you want to get your money’s worth from an actress, don’t let her carry dogs around on the screen. The dog will steal the show every time.
In fact, the dog gets the film's biggest laugh. Almost a week after seeing the film, it's the Pomeranian's big moment, early in the film, that I'm telling people about.
CHRIST FIGURE? NOT REALLY.
But I can’t put too much of the film’s failure on Lois Lane or the villains. This is a Superman movie, after all, and the guy just doesn’t inspire me at all.
Intelligence is not this Superman’s strong suit. He’s mostly a mountain of muscle whose desire to save the world amounts to picking off a few criminals here and there, and then wasting eight hours a day in a newspaper office where people are obsessed with celebrating his every move. Sounds more like super-ego than super-man.
Many Christian film critics are making much of this character as a Christ figure. And he certainly seems anxious to strike a Christly pose. He spreads his arms in crucifix poses, which earns some ooohs and aahhhs from some of my colleagues. And he makes some claims to cosmic compassion — he can apparently “hear everything,” including mankind’s cries for a savior. This suggests there is a spiritual crisis in the world that he wishes to address.
But Superman's actions show he's more interested in being a random life-saver than someone who can "light our way." He prevents car accidents and walks boldly into the blazing bullets of a machine gun to prevent a bank robbery. The lesson of such behavior should be “Don’t try this at home” instead of “Make this man your role model.” He's more likely to find his way into photo-ops than hearts.
If we really want to celebrate Christ-figures in film, why are we overlooking films like Hotel Rwanda or The Motorcycle Diaries, both of which give us much more beautiful portraits of Christ-like love and sacrifice?
I have a theory about that. We like to watch stories about people who will save us from trouble. We'd rather dream about being saved from our own distress than apply ourselves to relieving the problems of others. A true Christ figure inspires us to follow his courageous, selfless example and seek to help the needy. That makes us uncomfortable. It suggests that we are responsible to participate in saving the world. It asks something of us.
My colleague Steven Greydanus asks if the heroism of other characters like Lois and Richard might not have been inspired by Superman's bravery, but I don't see that. It looks to me more like heroism required by the plot in order to keep our favorite hero alive, so we have someone who will take care of our problems for us. I don't get any sense that Superman's heroics are lighting the way for anyone else.
NEXT TIME?
So, Superman has returned, but he has a lot to learn about being a light to the world, overcoming loneliness, and fulfilling responsibilities in relationship.
I'd love to see a sequel. But allow me to recommend some improvements: A villain who is truly frightening. A threat that comes from something other than the baggage Superman brought with him to earth. I'd like to see his character put to the test, not just his strength. If he falls in love, I hope we can find someone for him who's truly worthy of his admiration.
You know what I'd really like? A spin-off about the brave and faithful Richard White. Or that lovable but daaaaangerous Pomeranian.
The Terminal (2004)
[This review was originally published at Christianity Today.]
Near the end of Steven Spielberg's new film The Terminal — an ambitious, whimsical and sentimental movie similar in tone and gloss to 2001's Catch Me If You Can — one of the characters proves to be quite a juggler. It's a delightful moment, primarily because we know we aren't watching a special effect. Kumar Pallana's really juggling those hoops and spinning those plates!
Likewise, Spielberg's film is a juggling act that keeps the audience enthralled with small wonders and dramatic crescendos, even though he drops several of the hoops he's tossed, and some of the ideas spin out of control and crash to the floor in a cacophony of Hollywood clichés.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) - guest review by Greg Wright
Greg Wright, who edits Hollywood Jesus and runs Past the Popcorn, shared his thoughtful perspective of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed when we participated in a roundtable discussion at The Kindlings Muse podcast. So I was delighted to see that Wright had published a full review of the film at Past the Popcorn, and I quickly asked him if he would be willing to share the review here.
So here is Greg Wright's review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed...
•
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Here are the two truest statements you are likely to hear in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the latest quasi-Moore-ish documentary:
“Intelligent Design is merely a skirmish in a much larger war.”
“We all have our biases.”
Expelled, which argues that “Darwinian evolution” is exercising a stranglehold in our schools and scientific institutions, certainly provides proof of bias—in both intentional and unintentional ways. And the vituperative response from detractors who haven’t even seen the film proves that, yes, there is a much larger war going on out there.
Before talking about the film itself and its claims, it’s worth talking about that larger war just a little. It’s one we’ve all experienced to some degree and at some level: you know, those moments when we have encountered some educator who was far more interested in “shaping minds” (of the right sort) than in instilling a thirst for education. We may have encountered such indoctrinators in Sunday School classes; we’ve almost certainly encountered them in high school history classes or college comparative religion or literature courses.
This week in The Los Angeles Times, Greg Lukianoff wrote the following about such Thought Police:
It is chilling that we are raising a generation of citizens who believe it is their right to mandate the appropriate views that other citizens should have. It’s a formula for totalitarianism. … I shudder for the republic if the next generation of leaders brings such fundamentally anti-democratic thinking to America’s institutions of power.
It’s into this context—and with a long history of mutual antagonism, lawsuits, and hateful rhetoric between proponents and foes of Intelligent Design—that Expelled rather blithely wades. I say “blithely” because it seems the makers of the film don’t (or at least didn’t) appreciate the stakes of this “larger war.” To my taste, the film is neither precise enough nor rigorous enough to be of much value other than stirring an already sloppy pot.
For those who don’t know, “Intelligent Design” is a notion that has been around for a long, long time. Anyone who’s heard of the “Divine Proportion” or “Golden Ratio” knows the gist: when you look at certain aspects of nature, it’s hard not to think, “Gee. All this looks as if someone designed it.” And again, such observations have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Well, along came Charles Darwin, who popularized the also long-cherished notion that nature wasn’t designed at all, but came about through gradual processes that weeded out non-useful genetic variations, as well as traits that no longer suited the environment. Ideologues of all sorts jumped on board for all sorts of reasons, and Darwin’s theses got applied and extrapolated in all sorts of bizarre ways. Along the way, as the larger culture became saturated with neo-Darwinist influence, it became intellectually suspect to actually believe in a Designer; and when the grand Creationist project of the late 20th Century jumped the rails, many of its passengers rather craftily snuck about the I.D. train because they felt it could get them somewhat near their destination. But those who had fought the Creationists weren’t snookered… and the fight was on. It’s been waging now for going on twenty years. Poor Intelligent Design; it really didn’t deserve that kind of attention. And being distracted by the public relations battle hasn’t helped it gain any real traction as a scientific theory, either.
What Expelled posits—and, on the surface, it’s plausible, given the general recognition we have of Thought Police of all shapes and breeds—is that there is a concerted and organized effort in scientific academia to suppress inquiry into I.D. The film presents interviews with a number of editors, educators, and scientists who feel that they have been unfairly excluded from the scientific dialogue (and even punished) for daring to broach the subject of I.D. The film uses Michael Moore-ish documentary film techniques to entertain us as Ben Stein goes on a hunt to figure out if these claims are true; and it argues that the answer is “yes”—and that fundamental American freedoms are being challenged.
On the entertainment level—the one that probably counts the most to audiences (and should, to critics)—the film comes in at about a B level. It isn’t as outrageous as its Moore-ish or Spurlock-ian counterparts, and the subject matter just isn’t the kind of thing that can be easily dressed up as popcorn fodder. Relatively inexperienced director Nathan Frankowski does a decent enough job of helming such a powder keg of a topic, though it’s fair to say that Moore could probably have done a better job with such material. But heck; Moore’s been refining his techniques for twenty-odd years.
When it comes to its subject matter, though, Expelled fumbles the ball quite a bit. In the interests of entertainment and of simplifying its argument, it never bothers to tell us much about I.D., its tenets, its history, or its connections to Creationism. It oversimplifies the “opposition,” too, conflating activist atheists with practicing scientists who object on purely scientific grounds, and failing to distinguish between “Darwin,” “social Darwinism,” and “Darwinian evolution” as merely one branch of evolutionary biology. It also conveniently ignores voices in the debate who represent something of a middle ground.
Worse, in driving toward its “why this is important” conclusion, it takes us along on an unnecessarily distracting and inflammatory side trip to Germany so that we can get riled about Nazi Germany’s links to “Darwinian” thinking. Sure, such thinking was part of the recipe for the holocaust; but so was the Church. Eugenic laws were still on the books in the U.S. as late at the 1960s, so the film needn’t have raised the specter of Hitler to make its case.
On the plus side—and in my book, this is a big plus—Frankowski and primary screenwriter Kevin Miller don’t resort to the worst of Moore’s tricks in crafting their narrative. They don’t splice bits of archive footage together to make it appear that folks believe things that they really don’t; they don’t stage “recreations” and pass them off as real documentary footage; and they don’t strain our credulity by trying to pack in every outrageous claim they could possibly devise.
At the end of the day, though, I don’t find that the film makes a compelling case. Yes, I am inclined to believe that the opposition fights pretty dirty, particularly when Dawkins prattles on about his stereotyped description of God, or when P.Z. Myers dismissively compares religion to knitting, or when I read intros to emails like that from XVIVO’s David Bolinsky who writes to “the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of ‘Intelligent Design’.” So, yeah. I imagine there’s a cabal of repressionist, hateful thinkers out there who are as “systematic and ruthless” as the movie claims. And it’s kind of scary when you think that you might just be targeted by such folks. I simply don’t think those folks are really the same cabal that Expelled wishes us to believe that they are.
But if they are—and I stress, if they are, and they might be—Expelled simply plays too nice to catch them red-handed.
•
Expelled is rated PG for “thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking.” I am not a fan of this style of documentary, and think all such beasts should be rated at least PG-13. Certain levels of critical thinking skills and experience analyzing filmmaking techniques are required to guard against the kinds of cinematic manipulations that these films practice, and Expelledis no exception. Go in prepared and informed, keep your radar whirring, and be sure to do some of your own research on the issues when you leave.
Courtesy of the Discovery Institute and a national publicist, Greg attended a private screening of the final cut of Expelled.
NY Times: Ten Great Christian Rock Songs
It's not hard to demonstrate that Christian rock is often... even usually... cheesy, derivative, and shallow. Much of it sounds like commercials for Jesus rather than artistic endeavor.
But there are exceptions, although I'd prefer to take the modifier "Christian" off of those songs and just call them Songs... Good Songs.
On April 16, The New York Times ran a column by Daniel Radosh, who identifies himself as a secular Jew, author of Rapture Ready: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture.
Here, Radosh offers a list of 10 Christian rock songs worth hearing. And I'm very pleased by some of his choices. The comments on that page include some familiar names too, like Nick Purdy.Read more
Good News, Bad News from the Calvin Festival of Faith & Writing
Good news:
I had an extraordinary time at Calvin's Festival of Faith and Writing. So many new friends, so many books signed, so many inspiring encounters and lectures and conversations! My friend Stephen Lamb has been blogging about his experiences there.
Bad news:
My laptop blew up. Yes. With smoke and everything.
So, I'll be back with more details and regular blogging soon, but it'll be slow for a while here....
Grand Rapids, Here I Come
I'm packing for an early-morning flight to Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Calvin Festival of Faith and Writing, and I won't be home until Sunday night.
So, I probably won't have much opportunity to blog from there.
I'm looking forward to seeing some of you there. If you want to attend my presentations, check the schedule (link above).
Have a great weekend. Go see The Visitor this weekend!
Poem of the Week
Yesterday as I was driving home from work, I heard Garrison Keillor's daily "Writer's Almanac," and when he read the poem for the day, I almost had to pull over for the tears in my eyes.
I need to listen to this little program every day from now on.
What are your favorite poems? Give us the title and author... and a link to the text if you can find it.
Hemingway's Advice for Storytellers
Hemmingway, via my friend David Habecker:
Jeff,
I ran across this reference to Hemingway today and thought you might appreciate it, with its obvious application to much so-called "Christian literature":
"No good book has ever been written that has in it symbols arrived at beforehand and stuck in," says Hemingway. "That kind of symbol sticks out like raisins in raisin bread. Raisin bread is all right, but plain bread is better." He opens two bottles of beer and continues: "I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things. The hardest thing is to make something really true and sometimes truer than true."
The quote is from an article about Hemingway in TIME as referenced on Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish."