Poet Anne Overstreet Reading Tomorrow Night in Seattle

My favorite poet, Anne Overstreet, will be reading tomorrow night as just one participant in an evening full of art... at The Thread.

To convince you that I'm a huge fan of Anne's work, there's this: I married her. So unless I'm hit by a train, I'll be there cheering.Read more


Memento (2001)

2013 Update: I haven't seen Memento in many years, but I feel that I have seen enough Christopher Nolan movies to last a lifetime. It saddens me that Nolan seems stuck on telling stories about men who, trapped in desperate circumstances, can find hope only in violent resistance. He knows that to fight is to get your hands dirty, but he seems to see no other meaningful way to live. I've grown tired of that vision. But I suspect that I will admire Memento more than ever next time I see it, because it was a film that Nolan made with very few resources. And it didn't have that overbearingly dire musical score that has become predictable and unimaginative in his recent films.

Christopher Nolan's riveting breakthrough feature, Memento, puts its audience to work. We're asked to re-orient ourselves with every new scene, finding our bearings and figuring out just what the heck is going on... just as the hero tries to do the same thing.

A Polaroid photograph slowly fades during the opening credits. But wait, don't Polaroid photographs materialize? Something's wrong. Time is running backwards.

Like that Polaroid, Leonard's short-term memories fade within minutes. He's a sick and desperate man, groping and grasping at what details he can, scrawling down notes for himself obsessively so he doesn't forget the most important details of his life. He takes the current circumstance, the current conversation, the current quiet moment in a hotel room, and has to piece together what he's doing there, how he got there, and what he's supposed to do next. He covers himself with notes, even tattoos the most important facts of his life all over his body, so he won't lose track, so he won't fail in his objective.

And he has a severe objective. As one tattoo across his chest announces to him several times a day... J. G. raped and murdered his wife. It was that trauma that took away Leonard's memory, and that trauma that defines his life from moment to moment now. He will have revenge. He will find the guilty "J.G." and kill him.

Of course, this is tricky business, especially because Leonard doesn't don't know who to trust. Is "Teddy", who acts like his friend, really telling him the truth? How does he know that beautiful woman named Natalie? She certainly knows him! Who beat Natalie up, and gave her that nasty scar? Is that running man chasing Leonard, or is Leonard chasing him? Why is there a gun in Leonard's motel room drawer? Is it his? Is this even his room? And that note in his pocket...the message he wrote on it may have seemed crystal-clear at the time, but now it's as cryptic as ancient runes.

Few thrillers have ever demanded our undivided attention like Memento. It makes the mysteries of The Sixth Sense seem like kids' stuff. Even The Usual Suspects is simple by comparison. At the end, you most likely won't have everything figured out. But that's the fun of it... chasing the innumerable red herrings and zeroing in on what was real and what was a ruse.

Christopher Nolan directs the film with efficiency. The script is taut with sweat and panic. Guy Pearce, who was such an intriguing lead in L. A. Confidential is perfectly cast here. And Carrie-Ann Moss delivers another surprising performance which, set alongside her work in The Matrix and Chocolat, should vault her into the upper echelons of respected and versatile actresses in Hollywood. And Joe Pantoliano, one of the great supporting actors of recent years, is effective as the suspicious friend Teddy, with his Jack Nicholson grin and his exasperation.

I can't tell you any more about the story in this review without spoiling something. But I do think Memento is about more than just its story.

Like all great film noir, its hero is questing against all odds to accomplish some desperate mission, lonely, in an unfriendly world where everybody has their own agenda. Memento is as bleak as they come. But sometimes staring into humanity's heart of darkness is a healthy thing. This dark dangerous cinematic world is uncomfortably close to the truth.

All of us have had moments when we've been starved for a glimpse of human kindness, surrounded by road rage, office politics, crime, betrayals, or just the headlines on the news. Leonard is desperate for a friend.

But then again, he himself is a rather nasty piece of work. The energy he puts into his revenge mission doesn't turn him into anything like a William Wallace or a Maximus. Here's a movie that knows revenge is not a noble pursuit, but is instead a path in which your hands just get dirtier and dirtier. The desire to retaliate feeds an unhealthy hunger, not a virtuous one. Perhaps we should take comfort in God's assurance that "Vengeance is mine" — who else is in a position to judge?

Right after seeing Memento, I was troubled by the way everything moved in a downward spiral, uncovering layer upon layer of hatred, blackmail, selfishness, and hardened intent for evil. But my admiration of the film's design increased the more I thought about it as well. Critic Peter T. Chattaway, in a discussion of this film, made some very good points: "Personally, I don't mind a little bleakness once in a while; I've always been the sort of person who preferred Judges to Joshua, Ecclesiastes to Proverbs, Job to Deuteronomy. But I think this film acts as a cautionary tale, in some ways; [Leonard] is so determined to kill, so willing to impose a violent form of justice on the world, that he sets himself up for exploitation."

And the film does more than illustrate the danger of being resolved to violence. There are also a host of healthy questions the film can provoke in those willing to pursue them. Here are a few that came to my mind:

  • How much of your life is habit?
  • How much of your daily routine is the result of conditioning?
  • How much of your life do you take for granted?
  • Which of your assumptions about life might prove to be built on a false foundation?
  • How much of our faith do we base on the credibility of writers, believers, and thinkers that we have never met, whose authority we have never really questioned?
  • How much proof do you require to trust somebody?
  • What have your friends done to earn your confidence?
  • How sure are you that your memories contain enough information to represent the truth of events long past?

Surely these are questions that can be destructive. They can lead to paranoia.

But I think, in the right light, they can remind us that everything we think, say, or do is an act of faith.

Every moment of our lives, we respond based on very sketchy information. If we interpret that the world around us is doomed and without hope, we may act very much like Leonard, seeking frivolous satisfaction that we can get through selfish means. If we interpret the world around us as being full of signs, signs that point toward a grand design, then we need not let fear drive us. The suggestions of such a hope are everywhere, in the beauty and kindness around us... the love that has no reason to exist at all, but does.


Oldboy (2005)

Park Chan-wook, the Korean director currently winning fans with his hyper-violent stories of revenge, has clearly absorbed the techniques of great kung-fu filmmakers, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino, and other contemporary stylists like David Fincher. He knows how to dazzle with cool. He knows how to shock. He knows how to make us squirm, and how to send the squeamish — and even many of the ironclad — running for the exits.

So, does the hype generated by the Cannes festival favorite Oldboy indicate you should hasten to see it?

Not really. It’s true that Chan-wook choreographs some enthralling sequences in this story about an imprisoned and tortured man named Oh Dae-su who tries to hunt down his tormentor and get revenge. And it’s true that Choi Min-sik is a human hurricane in the lead role, careening between a deep Bill Murray malaise and a feverish battlefield intensity.

But the story of Dae-su’s sufferings, his escape, his various beatings and tortures, and the horrifying realizations waiting for him at the end is so wearying, bruising, and bloody that, well — this moviegoer has  I suspect most discerning viewers wit would better just to leave this one alone.

Chan-wook, who also directed Joint Security Area and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, here tells us about a drunk who is dragged off and locked up for fifteen years, with nothing but a television and a picture of Jesus to occupy his attention. Baffled as to the reason for his imprisonment, Dae-Su goes half-mad, eventually hallucinating, which gives Chan-wook the opportunity to trouble us with visions of ants that bore up through Dae-Su’s skin and crawl all over his face. We watch him train himself for his eventual rampage by fighting a figure drawn on the wall until he’s bloodied and beaten. When he learns that his wife has been murdered and his daughter adopted, he realizes that he’ll be hunted by the law if he escapes.

But he does, of course, escape, and quickly picks up a sexy sidekick named Mido (Gang Hye-jung), who falls for him soon after he orders a live octopus and stuffs it, still alive and wriggling, into his mouth, chewing its head up which its legs flail about.

And hear this: This is not an American movie, so the poor sea creature really is harmed in the making of the film. Yes, that really is a living octopus being chewed and swallowed before your eyes. If you make it that far, be warned, things are only just beginning. Soon, humans are being maimed with reckless abandon for your entertainment.

There will be teeth pried out of mouths by the claws of hammers… more than once.

There will be body parts chopped off, and a tongue cut off with scissors.

No matter what moral lesson Dae-su and his nemesis learn by the end, nothing excuses Chanwook’s grossly indulgent revelry in human suffering on the screen. Clearly, it’s a “wages-of-sin” story, but the filmmaker doesn’t seem interested in virtue. He just wants to capture sin and present it to you in a show of ego and cool. He seems to delight in nothing more than presentations of spectacular misbehavior.

At least Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction bothers to tell stories about characters who are trying to do the right thing, who have story arcs that begin in poor choices and end in demonstrations of moral growth. Here, it’s just a matter of bad guys bashing away at each other until they collapse in weeping heaps of regret, self-loathing, and outrageous hatred. Imagine Bad Lieutenant 2, in which two bad lieutenants fight each other in a game of sadistic one-upsmanship, without the appearance of the Redeemer. The token confession of sin at the end is performed at such an extreme level that it’s just another moment of hysteria, not a scene with any real resonance.

And the girl? She exists to be exploited for those who want some nudity and sex with their violence, and then to be the prize for whatever wicked character emerges alive at the end.

Manhola Darghis of The New York Times says it better than any critic I’ve come across:

There's no denying that Mr. Park is some kind of virtuoso, but so what? So was the last guy who directed a Gap commercial. Cinematic virtuosity for its own sake, particularly as expressed through cinematography … is a modern plague that threatens to bury us in shiny, meaningless movies.

Oldboy is almost meaningless, and worse. It is a wicked piece of work, lurid, and excited by excess — portraying myriad crimes against the beauty of the human body.

A friend of mine once emerged from a gratuitously violent film and praised it ecstatically. I asked him what he liked about it. “Watching those scenes of torture,” he said, “made me feel more alive than anything I’ve seen recently.”

If your life has become so numbing and dull that you need to watch other people in suffering to come to your senses, that should be a frightening revelation to you that you should seek help. We have become so accustomed to seeing a steady pageant of violence as entertainment that we have become desensitized. Great artists will reflect violence in a way that communicates the true horror of it, so that we will understand what is at stake, and so we lose any unhealthy appetite we may have for it.

I feel somewhat betrayed by the rave reviews for Oldboy. Believing I was going to experience the work of a significant artist, I opened myself to injury. Its tentacles are still wriggling in my memory, as if I just ate something that should never have been served in the first place.


"Sophie Scholl" Wins an Award from the Evangelical Press... Sorta.

How am I supposed to understand my purpose here when, regularly writing about movies that most evangelicals would never bother to watch, I'm suddenly given an Evangelical Press Award for reviewing a little-known foreign film directed by an atheist?

Many thanks to the folks who enjoyed this review and gave me this honor. I'm surprised and delighted!


On the Radio with Steve Brown, Kim Jeffries

Tune in to Steve Brown Etc.  We're talking about examining beauty, truth, and evil at the movies... and thus we're talking about Through a Screen Darkly.

And later: Kim Jeffries at Along the Way.


Looking Closer's Film Forum: "Spider-Man 3"


Spider-Man 3 explores the latest chapter of Peter Parker's education in the balance of power and responsibility.

In the first film, he was exhilarated by newfound talents, and learned to use them for the greater good. In Spider-Man 2, he felt the burden of responsibility, and considered tossing the mask aside and living a normal life. This time, Spider-Man's brought crime to a standstill and become the most popular celebrity in New York. But pride comes before a fall, and when you're swinging between skyscrapers, that's a very long fall indeed.

To be fair—Spider-Man doesn't just fall. He's pushed … by a variety of malevolent influences. The "3" in the movie's title may well be referring to the number of supervillains ganging up on our hero.

While it's not as satisfying as the second installment, Spider-Man 3 delivers 139 minutes of engaging, occasionally exhilarating entertainment that manages to bind drama, comedy, music, and action without losing its balance. And the special effects? You'll get your ten bucks' worth, no question.

But it's not perfect... not by any stretch of Sony's expensive imagination. Preposterous coincidences, an overcrowded storyline, and other problems may send viewers home grumbling.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) writes:

Are these too many characters, too many storylines? Well, yes. Like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest or Peter Jackson’s King Kong, Spider‑Man 3 represents creativity run amok, where most popcorn entertainment represents creativity struggling to put one foot in front of the other. The results may be somewhat uneven compared to the outstanding Spider‑Man 2, but this film’s heights are series high points — and it’s consistently head and shoulders above the original film, which remains the weak link in the series.

Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) says,

Spider-Man 3 not only delivers more of what the series has brought in the past, it appears to have done so in a manner that should please both audiences and bean-counters.
...
As a film, it reaches too far—four villains (including Spidey himself) are about two too many, and Topher Grace, among others, is wildly miscast. The diabolus plot-device never rises above that lame and paltry level. And I’m sorry, but Dunst and Maguire—while competent enough—are being wildly overpaid, regardless of the odd chemistry that they obviously produce.

Federica Matthewes-Green says,

... the dialogue and characters and underlying themes, are all richer than the usual action movie fare – it’s a banquet of a movie.

Stephen McGarvey (Crosswalk) says,

Those who enter the theater with their $9 bucket of popcorn looking to be wowed by heretofore unseen action sequences won’t go home disappointed. Those who are looking for more of the poignant storytelling of the first two films, which blended character growth and deeper philosophical themes with Peter Parker’s adventures, may be dissatisfied.

And Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says,

Some may find it overlong, but that's a small carp in such a satisfying, surprisingly moving film, with its solid themes of good versus evil, self-esteem, forgiveness and redemption. Though the film is classified for adults because of some comic-book brutality, many parents may deem it acceptable for their older teens.

Peter Suderman (National Review) highlights the highs and lows, but has a lot of trouble with the film's conclusion. (You might want to steer clear if you're worried about "spoilers," as this may be too revealing for you.) writes,

...this film’s final moments weirdly intimate that it’s time to forgive enemies — even those who’ve hurt us most — rather than fight them. It’s too brief a sequence to ruin the movie, but it’s vexing all the same. Indeed, along with the film’s many other wobbles, it may be a sign that the superhero genre that Raimi’s first Spider-Man perfected has started to weaken by falling prey to fashionable modern sentiments. No longer does Spider-Man struggle with the responsibility granted by his power to fight off a known villain before he acts again. This time, Spidey’s final act is letting the bad guy get away. How unheroic.

Anthony Lane (New Yorker) shows no mercy:

In an early scene, a meteorite crashes to Earth, and from it crawls what seems to be a tiny garbage sack with half a mind of its own: not a bad image of where this film belongs. And, would you believe, the first person this superblob attaches itself to is, yes, Peter Parker. It doesn’t choose him; nobody has targeted him—of all Earth’s inhabitants, he just happens to be close by. Is this truly the best that the filmmakers can be bothered to do for our delight? Just how easily and stupidly pleased do they presume we are? ... [T]his is where the film becomes so embarrassing that you have to crouch down and stuff popcorn in your ears.


Looking Closer's Film Forum: "Hot Fuzz"

Folks have been asking what I thought of Hot Fuzz. (In fact, when I spoke at Seattle's Chesterton Society last Thursday about the complicated questions facing Christians in the moviemaking arena, the very first question after my presentation was: "So what did you think of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead?" Long awkward silence. I blinked, stammered a bit, and shifted into fanboy mode... but it was an awkward shift.)

Why haven't I bothered to write about it? Maybe it's because, while I enjoyed it, I found it slightly disappointing, and I just couldn't muster the enthusiasm to blog. It's much easier to write about a film if I'm either intrigued, excited, or really disappointed.Read more


Coen Brothers' New Film "a Glory to Behold"?

I was excited when I read the book. I've been eager for the film. If I see more reviews like this, the wait is going to become unbearable...Read more


Len Evans Discovers "Darkly"

Here's another blogger, Len Evans, thinking about Through a Screen Darkly.