Peter Suderman on "Children of Men"... Again
I have occasionally revised, or completely rewritten, my review of a film simply because it took more than one viewing before I could see it clearly enough, and understand it deeply enough, to make a fair assessment.
If I could take back the way I rated Spider-man 3 and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at ChristianityTodayMovies.com, believe me, I would. (Instead of 3.5/4 stars, they'd each get 2.5-star ratings.)
Peter Suderman wrote passionately about his problems with Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men when it first came out. (And I remember taking heavy flack for defending that film upon its release. I love it even more now, after four or five viewings, and would only expand upon the appreciation I expressed in my original review.)
Well, Suderman has just published a thoughtful reconsideration of the movie. (Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the link.)Read more
In Two Weeks: "Auralia's Colors" at Seattle Pacific University's Library
"Food for Thought"
You're invited to bring a brown-bag lunch into the Seattle Pacific University Library where I'll be reading from Auralia's Colors, talking about the series, and answering questions. Copies will be available for purchase.
When: Thursday, January 31, 12:30 to 1:15 p.m.
Where: Seattle Pacific University Library Reading Room, Main Floor
Name 20 recent films that portray Christianity in a positive light
I frequently receive mail from readers who argue that we should ignore "Hollywood's output" because of the ways in which Christians are negatively portrayed.
If I dare answer by suggesting that some of these portrayals are actually fair -- even deserved -- I am quickly swamped by email telling me where I'll be spending eternity. (Hint: Not heaven.)
But I know many Christians who are devoting their lives to developing meaningful art and entertainment. Yes, in Hollywood.
And I frequently participate in fruitful, enlightening discussions about movies made by Hollywood studios... movies that that explore issues of faith.
Further, I frequently see movies that present Christianity, Christians, and truths fundamental to Christian faith in a positive light -- movies from Hollywood, but from also from other cultures. I see movies all the time that provide visions of beauty and reflections of truth, declaring God's glory without any direct mention of Christianity.
So I have a hard time taking such complaints against those unflattering portrayals seriously. Of course we should be discerning moviegoers. But just boycott or condemn art and entertainment from Hollywood, simply because Christians are sometimes portrayed as liars (which we sometimes are), charlatans (which we sometimes are), and hypocrites (which we sometimes are)?
Might as well boycott grocery stores. Or public libraries. Or public schools. Grocery stores stock products owned by organizations that are unfriendly toward Christians. Public libraries are full of books that portray Christianity in a negative light. Public schools often employ teachers who are hostile toward Christianity.
I was delighted to discover a useful list to keep on hand when I receive such complaints. My friend and colleague Steven D. Greydanus, who publishes reviews at Decent Films and at Christianity Today Movies was challenged, at artsandfaith.com, to "name twenty Hollywood movies made since the turn of the millennium that present Christianity in a positive light."
He took a stab at it, and came up with this list:
[UPDATE: PLEASE NOTE, I did not create this list. Some bloggers have reported that I wrote it. And further, PLEASE NOTE, the challenge asked for Hollywood movies made since the turn of the millennium!]
Were the Year's Best Foreign Films Snubbed by the Academy?
It came to my attention today that at least three of the most celebated foreign films of the year have been snubbed by the Academy this year.
Here's a report from LA Weekly's Scott Foundas.
In their nine-title list of films that may win the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, they completely ignored not only Cristian Mungiu's internationally celebrated 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days, but also the French animated feature Persepolis, and Juan Antonio Bayona's The Orphanage.
I haven't seen any of these three, so I'm happy to admit that I might be misinformed on what did or did not deserve to be selected. But based on the overwhelming praise for these three films, I'm very, very curious about the exclusion of this film.
Often, the Academy's narrow rules end up excluding some of the year's best films... movies that are sometimes far better than anything made by American filmmakers all year. For example, the beloved film by Krzysztof Kieslowski, Three Colors: Blue, one of my favorite films of all-time, was disqualified on a technicality.
But this year, films that have been celebrated internationaly as landmark achievements, films that qualified within the rules (as far as I can tell), were overlooked for films that have hardly stirred any discussion amongst critics worldwide. What's going on here? I'm open to hearing a reasonable explanation, but it certainly seems like the process should be reviewed and revised.
Is "There Will Be Blood" a Film for "Narrow-Minded Bigots"?
"The realistic, gritty atmosphere created by screenwriter/director Paul Thomas Anderson and actor Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview is tremendous. It is practically ruined, however, by Anderson's evil caricature of Eli, the revenge-minded preacher, and the over-the-top, unrealistic performance of Paul Dano as Eli. In fact, THERE WILL BE BLOOD is one of the most mean-spirited, anti-Christian, superficial, and poorly played portrayals of religion ever created in movie history. God knows there have been plenty of insincere, sinful leaders in the Christian church, but there have also been many good Christians who have exposed and opposed such false leaders. The short length of most feature films often require stereotypes, even negative ones, to tell a good story, but when they are so mean-spirited, superficial and poorly played as this one is, they appeal only to narrow-minded bigots with an ax to grind, whose mental faculties and hearts have been poisoned by their sinful misanthropic prejudice."
So, here we have a review that criticizes Anderson's movie for including a portrayal of a judgmental Christian.
The reviewer classifies this portrayal as a stereotype, and describes the portrayal as mean-spirited, superficial, and poorly-played.
Then he goes on to judge anyone who finds the film appealing, defining them with a cruel caricature of his own making.
And thus, he gives the impression that, speaking as a Christian, he is prone to judging other people and defining them with a mean-spirited caricature of his own design.
Yes, There Will Be Blood does focus on a wicked preacher — Eli Sunday. Sunday makes a dramatic show of casting out evil spirits, but it's clear that he's not truly a man of God. He's a liar. He's a deceiver. He twists scriptures so that he can manipulate people.
Guys like him appear in another favorite work of mine: The Holy Bible.Read more
Reasons to Argue, Not to Censor
What? Philip Pullman? Again? The Christian Century joins the party with a cover story on Pullman, after most of the partygoers are gone. But I think there's still some punch in the punchbowl... for those still up for throwing some punches...
These books are a gripping account of a story that is familiar in our culture: organized religion is bad and dangerous, self-reliance and heroic work are good and redemptive. For many readers, this story will ring true. Many other readers will realize that Pullman's God is not the God of the Bible, who "abounds in steadfast love" and insists on justice for the poor. These are not reasons to censor or shun Pullman's powerful, enjoyable and imaginatively rich series, but they are reasons to argue with it.
Hmm. I wonder if The Christian Century's mailbox will overflow with hate mail now, from readers declaring that they are in league with the devil for doing anything less than condemning Pullman to some fiery abyss. Or maybe those readers worked that all out of their system sending that mail to Christianity Today and to me.
Specials: Fantasy Debut Talks Auralia's Colors; Walter Talks Lars and the Real Girl
Three quick notes before I close up shop here at 1 a.m. ...
I had a chat with Fantasy Debut's Tia Nevitt about Auralia's Colors this week, which you're welcome to read. She asked thoughtful questions. (A while back, she finished reading the book and posted her thoughts.)
Adam Walter, one of my favorite bloggers, just posted some wonderful observations on my favorite comedy of 2007: Lars and the Real Girl. He also noted Ebert's response (but warns of spoilers).
P.S. Don't miss McSweeny's Top Ten Best Ever.
Top Five Favorite Responses from Angry Readers
'Tis the season for top ten lists.
So, having posted my top 10 (and more) favorite movies and albums for the year, let's move on to the next most exciting thing. I'm kicking off a new annual list:
Top Five Favorite Responses from Angry Readers
Full disclosure: Although I've received plenty of spectacular responses here at the blog this year, all five of these first-rate put-downs were were mailed straight to Christianity Today in response to the re-printing of my commentary on the different ways in which Christians are responding to The Golden Compass. So even if I wanted to post these in their entirety, I couldn't. It's worth noting, though, that my opinion earned not only my damnation, but the damnation of Christianity Today International as an organization.
So... here we go.
More 2007 Lists Worth Noting
My Netflix queue just went into cardiac arrest as I read about all kinds of new movies on the 2007-Best lists from Doug Cummings and Robert Koehler. What would I do without tour guides like them?
Nate Bell separates wheat from chaff.
Brandon Fibbs is impressed with many, but only one "gobsmacked" him.
David Hudson still has the greatest film-lover's blog on the web, and his own list is as interesting as any I've read. (I can't wait to get into a theater to see his #1 choice.)
Jonathan Rosenbaum is his usual hard-to-please self., meandering between moments of inspiring enthusiasm and annoying condescension.
And Josh Hurst's favorite music of 2007 is now packaged for your consumption.
Specials: Coppola on Great "Young Directors." Nick Cave Raises Lazarus. Performances We Won't See.
Coppola's Favorite Young Directors
Francis Ford Coppola on his favorite "young directors":
Q: With the caveat that you can't name anyone related to you, are there any young directors out there whose work feels to you like the stuff that you and your chums were making back in the day?
A: I know this is gonna sound funny, but the one young director I really admire is Woody Allen, because he writes 'em, and he makes 'em, and he goes on undaunted and just does it, and every film he makes has something wonderful in it, even if one is great and another is less great. But there's a whole list of talented younger filmmakers -- there's Paul Thomas Anderson and David Russell and Wes Anderson and Tamara Jenkins and Todd Solondz. We are rich with talent.