Intriguing letters of the week!
I'm as anxious as anybody to leave the political and critical debates about Brokeback Mountain behind.
But email feedback at Looking Closer has more than doubled since my Brokeback Mountain review was published, and just this week, I've received several interesting messages, and a few are from people who go out of their way to say that they aren't Christians, but that they agree with the review.
This kind of thing always surprises and delights me. I'm happy to find that there are unbelievers who don't run the other direction when they see that a film review was written by a Christian. I'm even happier when they're willing to engage in conversation with me.
Anyway, on to a sampling of the messages:
Your movie review site is a sad sight, and portrays you as a sanctimonious moron. Not hardline like Christian Spotlight on the Movies so we can laugh at you, but your rants against individualism and selfishness still make you look crazy. If this is how your religion makes you think, maybe you should reconsider your religion.
I'm going to avoid including names with these messages, but I was so powerfully intrigued by the information included with this writer's name:
Personal site : www.insolitology.com/personal/
Owner of Strongatheism.net ( www.strongatheism.net ).
Co-Host of the Hellbound Alleee show ( www.hellboundalleee.com )
Author of "Handbook of Atheistic Apologetics", "Introduction to Objectivism" and "Atheism in a Post-religious World" [http://www.objectivethought.com/books/]
I don't vote and I'm proud. www.non-voters.org
Okay. Today, I learned that I'm living in "a post-religious world." What would atheists do in" a post-religious world," I wonder? Not sure, but apparently they wouldn't vote!
So, since it's unlikely that I'll ever stop being at least annoyed by films art that celebrates individualism and selfishness, let's move on...
My name is [name deleted by writer's request] and i am 18 years old, i am studying Brokeback Mountain and its representation of the homosexual community for my A level course in Media, independant study.
I just wanted to write to you to show my support of your review. I can agree with so many statements you made about the portrayal of Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar as heroes even though they have made mistakes that hurt others, and the way that the media has raved about the film as a love story when in fact although there is sentiment there, the majority of the focus is on the sexual encounter between the two men.
I myself am neither gay nor religious but i felt so relieved to finally read a review of the film that told it like it is, that gave a balanced and accurate opinion of the good and bad points of Brokeback.
As well as this i am also involved in the theatre production of "The Laramie Project", a piece of theatre based on the hate crime involving Matthew Shepard. I'll assume you know about this? We recently performed part of the play ... in London and got a wonderful response. Soon we hope to peform the play to 12 schools in the local area, to try and raise awareness of homophobic bullying and encourage tolerance.
It's wonderful to hear the views of a Christian, a view that does not include the damning of individuals in same sex relationships, expressing an opinion so clearly.
All in all, i just wanted to say thank you for such a well written and thoughtful review to a sensitive topic, it really put the film in perspective for me.
And another...
I just wanted to complement you on a great review of Brokeback Mountain. I just saw it last night, enjoyed it very much on many levels, and came away with thoughts similar to those in your review. Mind you, as a heterosexual male, I have absolutely no issue with homosexuality (or, what was actually portrayed in the movie, bisexuality), and am decidedly not a Christian. But the theme I kept seeing in the movie was one indeed of two folks abdicating their responsibility for their actions. Societal or theological rules aside, they had promised certain things to real people in their lives (their wives and children), and just ignored them to their detriment. It was sad, and heartbreaking, but I kept thinking, um, "You did this to yourselves. You probably shouldn't have married women in the first place."
I have to note however, that given the culture at the time, and to a large extent now, the idea of the two main characters (men) marrying, setting up a ranch in the landscape they knew, and living happily ever after was not even in the remote edges of their sphere of reality, despite what the Jack suggests in the movie. Perhaps that underlying cultural intolerance set the whole 'tragic' aspect of the movie in motion. (Especially in light of what Ennis saw as a child.) As you mention, neither of them had proper upbringing, and really had no 'guide' to help with their emotions. Before they even bonded in the tent, Ennis was drunk and ignoring his responsibility to guard the sheep. Not completely out of line for a 19-year-old in the wilderness, but indicative perhaps of a misplaced (or undeveloped) code of ethics that blossomed into more painful consequences later on.
Again, great review. And if you get some responses (or have had them) that claim you are just bigoted or whatever, I didn't get that at all.
I'd be happy to include some of the messages that condemned me for the review, but many included language that I can't post here, and one even included some descriptions of Jesus Christ involved in obscene acts... just because they thought it would make me angry. Instead, it just makes me sad that someone can go to the trouble to tell you that you have a "hatred and intolerance" problem, and then exhibit such complete hatred and intolerance that you wonder what they mean by the words.
Oh, one more...
Hats off for an insightful, balanced and accurate review.
I went to see Brokeback Mountain with a dear friend [of many years] yesterday. I am a proud father and the grateful husband of my best friend. [Personal details deleted.] At age 18, I embraced Christ and with much difficulty rejected homosexuality. I had actively and exclusively identified as such since age 11. To my disappointment, the struggle with homosexual desire has been constant, with varying degrees of intensity, since my conversion and I have come to accept that it is something I will have to contend with the rest of my life. With God's help, I have never been nor, never will be, unfaithful to my wife or to my Lord.
Having said that, I was alternately apprehensive about seeing the film for fear of needlessly enflaming unwanted passions and, intensely curious about the true nature of it. Though promoted as a love story, I was surprised to find myself thinking it entirely implausible that one could tell a story of gay love that was not really about gay sex.
As a sometime political and social activist I am very familiar with the positions staked out by both sides in the gay debate. While working to retain Biblical standards in law and social mores, I have also sought to be truly empathetic, respectful and compassionate towards those (of us) who, for a multitude of reasons, live with homosexual tendencies.
I am a strong advocate of deep, meaningful, intimate, lifelong relationships between members of the same sex. Some of my favorite verses speak of "bowels of affection and compassion" and being "kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love." Due to what appears to be our design, they bring us healing, wholeness and a strong base from which to live, give and lead healthy lives.
Hence, my ultimate decision to see the film to evaluate for myself whether this story is really one of love or sex. While I welcomed the idea of a story of two men truly loving and being committed to each other over a lifetime I doubted the love, and the relationship, would stand on its own if the sex were removed. I was, unfortunately, as you so aptly pointed out, right.
Thankfully, as I have grown older I have come to understand that the love that satisfies; that fulfills our need for commitment, trust, faithfulness, honesty and friendship; is the essence of our relationship with God and His desire for us concerning our relationships with each other. For love to lead to physical intimacy the relationship must be legitimate and God alone, as our Creator and Sustainer, has the authority and right to define the term: one man, one woman, in covenant.
Like it or not, fully understand or agree with it or not, the terms of true love are clear and to reject them is to reject God. To reject God, regardless of the reason, is to reject His love for us and any hope of living beyond our short-sighted, self-serving, and ultimately self-destructive desires. To reject God is to settle for something other than love.
Real love always involves cost, dying to self, indeed, sacrifice, as Jesus clearly demonstrated. Whether one considers him or herself heterosexual or homosexual, the pursuit of real love will always involve the need to lay down one's selfish impulses in favor of what could be called purity, holiness or righteousness. Heterosexual and homosexual individuals, families, and communities across time and space have suffered the consequences associated with insisting on following one's own way, of forming one's own truth.
Ennis and Jake's story left me feeling sad. I laughed at their innocence and cried at their loss. In the end, it was not loss of love denied that made my heart ache but the choices they made. Tragically, almost unbelievably, they consistently chose sex over love, physical gratification over commitment, lust over friendship. In their wake they left abused spouses, neglected children, and, each other.
I felt their pain and anguish, the grief and torment associated with not being able to have what they wanted. Resisting temptation and dying to our self is painful. However, a tolerant society would not have solved their problem. We, all, regardless of our particular state of denial must deal with the reality of God; the betrayal and shallowness associated with giving in to temptation. Love is painful, it is costly, but it is so worth it.
At any point, Ennis and Jake could have chosen relationship over forbidden sexual interests. Sadly, they did not. Rather, they traded a handful of exciting, sex-driven fishing trips for what could have been a lifetime of love, mutual support, companionship and genuine friendship. Therein lies the true tragedy of Ennis and Jake.
I am no film critic but I was pleasantly surprised at what a beautiful movie it was. I found the characters, storyline and settings compelling and never felt that I had to suspend reality to keep pace with it. I am guessing this might mean that the script, acting, cinematography, etc was of a high quality. Though the film has an obvious message and agenda, it is filled with complexities and subtleties that leave room for analysis and appreciation whether or not you agree with it or not. [Spoilers deleted.]
Jeffrey, I appreciate this opportunity to put in writing some of my thoughts regarding Brokeback. When I decided to seek out a review of the film from a self-described Christian perspective I was a little afraid. I was still sorting out some of my thoughts and feelings about the film and did not want to be influenced by those who are under or overly critical of it. Yours was the first I decided to read and was very satisfied to find that my conclusions were shared by another.
Brokeback is definitely a film that leaves one moved on an emotional level and somewhat challenged, intellectually and spiritually. I am relieved to find that though it provided ample reminder of who I was and could be, the film did not provide fodder for fruitless fantasies but rather strengthened my resolve to live a life of love, commitment and honor for my wife, family, friends, my God, and even, myself.
Some say that Brokeback is being touted as a potential award winner solely due to its subject matter. Having seen the film I suspect that many of its detractors oppose it for the same reason. If political supporters and critics are taken out of the equation I see no reason why it should not be in the running. It is a quality film and deserves to be judged on its merits.
He then asked for prayer for someone who is close to him who is also struggling with these issues. While I can't mention the details here, I'd invite you to pray for the writer, that he might be an encouragement and a source of inspiration, and also... pray for the one who is struggling. If you're unsure what outcome to ask for... just ask God to lead this person to the truth, which will be liberating.
Innocence Mission / Over the Rhine updates
[CORRECTION: Seems I was duped by a rumor about Sufjan Stevens remastering the Innocence Mission album. Truth is, he just really really loves it, and there's a quote on the packaging of him raving about it.]
Two of the most beautiful voices in music.
Two married couples.
Two of my favorite bands.
Over the Rhine and The Innocence Mission.
And in 2006, we'll be hearing new albums from both.
Over the Rhine's new live record is about to ship to those who have ordered it through their Web site. If you're one of those eager fans, you can pass the time by reading this excellent interview with Linford and Karin, written by Mark Moring, who is the editor of Christianity Today Movies (and their Music page as well.) You can also read about their recent visit to New Zealand here.
Meanwhile, The Innocence Mission are re-releasing their masterpiece, Birds of My Neighborhood, this time boasting the praise of Sufjan Stevens on the packaging. They're working on a new record too. But before it arrives, you'll have to pick up the new solo album from Don Peris: Go When the Morning Shineth. It's an enchanting new collection of instrumentals and songs that let his guitar stylings really... uh... glow.
My review of Peris's album will be posted by the end of the week.
Specials: "Inside Man" - Spike Lee's best film? Betty Page. Kieslowski.
Sunday specials:
THE BEST SPIKE LEE FILM EVER?
(via GreenCine Daily) Emmanuel Levy nearly hyperventilates raving about Spike Lee's Inside Man:
... nothing short of brilliant. As of March, it's the best film of 2006. It's also the best film Lee has made in his twenty-year career. I'll review the film at length next week, but for now, the best compliment I can pay Lee and Inside Man is to say that both the master of suspense Hitchcock and prince of New York City police dramas Sidney Lumet would be proud of his work.
It's shocking to realize that the electrifying screenplay was written by a newcomer, Russell Gewirtz, and in which no detail is unimportant, and no clue is a throwaway.
BETTIE PAGE ABIDES
What ever happened to Bettie Page? Thanks to Kathy Shaidle, now I know that Page is 82, "refuses to be photographed," and "wants fans to remember her as she was in the 1950s" ... when she worked with the Billy Graham Crusade.
THREE COLORS, COUNTLESS WONDERS
(via GreenCine Daily) The Guardian's Richard Williams on the genius of Kieslowski:
When Krzysztof Kieslowski died on March 13, 1996, it was as though a certain kind of cinema had come to an end along with him. The calm, reflective, compassionate gaze he brought to bear on the dilemmas faced by his characters made him the most humanistic of film directors. No less than the work of others, his movies demanded the skills of scriptwriters, cinematographers, editors, composers, costumiers and make-up experts; yet the audience seldom had the sensation of being manipulated by professionals. Instead, they felt they were watching the patient investigation of aspects of their own existences. "That was the whole secret of Krzysztof," I was told after his death by Zbigniew Preisner, a close collaborator who composed the music that became such a salient feature of Kieslowski's best-known works. "People felt close to him through his films."
Specials: "The Dark Crystal." Proulx-poo. Carell and WHO?
Sunday specials:
CRYSTAL METHOD
Peter Chattaway finally watched The Dark Crystal. And he's not so sure it's the "New Age" trip it has been sometimes described to be.
PROULX-POO
E. Anne Proulx's account of the Oscars would never be described as "a romp."
"IT'S THREE COLORS: BLUE MEETS THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRIGIN..."
What great actress would you least expect to see paired with Steve Carell in a romantic comedy? How about my favorite actress, Juliette Binoche?
The New World, and those who admire it religiously
The Village Voice's J. Hoberman says that The New World is the most beloved film of the last year... not because the most people loved it, but because those who do love it are devoted with the most passionate intensity.Read more
MirrorMask
Wow.
I...
Wow.
I am punishing myself today for not seeing MirrorMask in the theater.
I sat down to watch this last night because I was tired and wanted something that wouldn't demand too much attention... something that would, basically, take my mind off of the busy day and help me shift gears toward sleeping.
I wasn't prepared to see something that would send me running back to revise my Best of 2005 list.
I should have trusted the Jim Henson Company... this is an addition to their canon worthy of standing beside Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal. Sure, it's a very different kind of animation than the puppetry of those shows, but this is one of the most beautiful works of CGI/live-action blending I've ever seen.
Pure imagination. Surprises. Awe-inspiring spectacles. Endearing performances. Unforgettable characters. A dreamlike tone that is sustained throughout, operating with all of the confounding leaps in logic and the unsettling strangeness that is true of most real dreams. So the heroine, Helene, doesn't seem disoriented by the fact that she's stepped into Wonderland... that's the way dreams are! So she hardly blinks when she encounters bizarre and alien intelligence... that's the way dreams are!
I haven't seen a film with such an original vision for environments, creatures, and characters since... oh... The Dark Crystal. It makes the folks running the Harry Potter films, the Narnia movie, and the Star Wars universe look positively unimaginative.
And I was surprised and pleased by its storyline. The previews had led me to believe it was JUST about the effects. But I was actually quite touched by its Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz tale of a girl who, traumatized by grief and by her frustrations with her mother, finds her "darker self" taking over while she herself escapes into imagination to try and work through her fears. In the end, she faces a choice... to let her darker self triumph (the self that rebels, responds with anger, plunges into reckless self-indulgence), or to fight back with an attitude of hope, understanding, and reconciliation.
MirrorMask walks a different ideological path than The Dark Crystal, which portrayed Good and Evil as Equals that need to exist in Balance. While Mirrormask also talks a lot about "balance," evil is definitely something to suppress and overcome here.
The performances were understated. The dreamscapes are awe-inspiring. There are some unforgettable characters. The mask designs, from the sphinxes to the charming, Mr. Tumnus-like character of Valentine, to the Giants Orbiting, are fantastic. The humor is sly, dry, and unpredictable.
And the wicked witch (played by Gina McKee) is far, far more frightening and interesting than the White Witch of big screen Narnia.
This is easily my favorite fantasy film of 2005... outdoing Howl's Moving Castle, Narnia, and Star Wars, Episode Three. Goes to show how small budgets armed with big imaginations can out-do the big-budget crowdpleasers like Adamson. As much as I'm rooting for Adamson to improve upon his Wardrobe film with a more imaginative and original vision for the sequel, I'd be much more excited about seeing a sequel to Mirrormask than Prince Caspian.
Anybody who loves fantasy, fairy tales, and childrens' stories should make this one a must-rent.
Once again, it's Adam Walter's enthusiasm that sent me out to rent this. Since he also spurred me to go see Tony Takitani, I'm learning to trust his instincts.
Specials: Ebert on "Crash"-lash. Gaiman gets DeNiro and Pfeiffer. Lois Lowry's "The Giver."
IF YOU VOTED FOR CRASH, DOES THAT MEAN YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE?
Roger Ebert asks the question that needs to be asked: Just 'cause I didn't vote for Brokeback, does that make me a homophobe? Good question. And by the way, if Hollywood is so homophobic, why did they spend the evening congratulating themselves for being so progressive? And why did they give Ang Lee Best Director? Why did they give Capote Best Actor?
DE NIRO AND PFEIFFER GET STARDUST-ED
Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer... together at last in Neil Gaiman's Stardust.
THE GIVER GIVEN TO PERELMAN
Several people who have excerpts from my novel Auralia's Colors have asked me if it was inspired by Lois Lowry's novel The Giver. As a matter of fact, no, I've never read it. But the frequent comparisons have intrigued me.
Now, it looks like I'll not only read the book, but I'll see the movie, which will be directed by Vadim Perelman (who happens to be one of the only film directors who has ever contacted me to comment on my review of his work!) I was impressed with Sand and Fog, so I'm looking forward to this...
The story centers on Jonas, a 12-year-old boy living in an idyllic future society where all memory of human history has been erased. His life is thrown into turmoil when he is designated to inherit the role of the Giver -- the sole keeper of the vast range of human emotions. Perelman will work from an earlier draft penned by Todd Alcott. Jeff Bridges and Neil Koenigsberg of AsIs Prods. and Orly Wiseman and Nikki Silver of On Screen Entertainment are producing.
After condemning Christianity Today in public, what's Mr. Ted Baehr's next amazing statement?
Here is Ted Baehr, still thinking he is the voice of Christian film criticism ... and frighteningly enough, many of them would say that he is... as he sums up the Oscars.
Here are a few choice statements:
Of course, by shutting out the best family movies with godly, Christian messages – like "The Chronicles Of Narnia," "Dreamer," "Madagascar" and "Chicken Little" – the Oscar ceremony ensured that it would get the lowest ratings ever from the TV audience, the vast majority of whom are families and Christians with TV sets in their living rooms.
And you and I both know that ratings are always the measure of excellence, right?
It's hard to know where to begin in pointing out the problems with Mr. Baehr's approach. Sure, Hollywood has its problems. But if you start out by pointing to disposable animated films like Madagascar as examples of excellence, you're not going to get very far. Popular? Sure. But McDonald's is popular dining fare... that doesn't make it excellent.
The Oscars heralded quite a few films with "godly, Christian messages" this year. Crash challenges viewers to be cautious, to sift their thoughts and behaviors for perspectives tainted by presumption and prejudice. It asks us to consider why people are so quick to behave contentiously with each other, and what is missing from our lives that we lash out so quickly. Yes, it has a lot of foul language, and viewers should proceed with caution; but guess what--people really talk that way in the world I encounter every day, and just because an artist portrays human beings in various misbehaviors doesn't mean he condones those misbehaviors. Haggis's film portrays immorality; it never even comes close to glorifying it or recommending it.
Good Night and Good Luck, while flawed in a few of its historical details, urges us to be vigilant in seeking the truth, and not to let our zeal to overcome evil lead us to rash judgments and a tendency toward distrust and suspicion. That sounds like "a Christian message" to me.
Capote shows us how someone can approach in the guise of compassion and care, and still be a villain. And it coaxes us to consider the detrimental effects of fame and success, and how the drive to become significant and famous can lead us to moral compromise. (Of course, it is also about a homosexual man. But homosexual men are as precious to God, and as capable of good choices, as any other kind of sinner... including those who are pious and judgmental. Unfortunately, this particular sin seems to send some Christians into exceptionally harsh judgment, rejecting any film about such characters even if the film makes no attempt to glorify homosexuality--in fact, the film is not concerned with that issue whatsoever.)
Brokeback Mountain, while widely misinterpreted as a celebration of homosexuality, portrays the despair and damage suffered by those who lie, cheat, and plunge into a reckless and hasty sexual relationship. It also shows the damage of prejudice and hatred. It is not wrong to hate sinful behavior, but it is very wrong to behave hatefully toward sinners and to punish lost souls for being lost.
Junebug, one of the most gracious and honest portrayals of a Christian family and community I've ever seen on the big screen, encouraged us not to judge each other for our differences of tradition and belief. In fact, it was a story of the humbling of a New York elitist, who comes to appreciate the love and care shown in a traditional Christian family. But some Christians wrote it off because the New York intellectuals had some colorful langague (which is an honest portrayal) and because of a glimpse of a married couple making love... scenes that were tastefully filmed and far from gratuitous.
Madagascar? Good grief, it was widely criticized for its shoddy storytelling and poor craftsmanship. I couldn't sit through more than half an hour of it, it was so devoid of character development and heart. Just because a film is "clean" doesn't mean it is good. Just because you've pumped a couple of vitamins into a dish doesn't mean it's excellent cuisine.
As expected, the sexually explicit homosexual movie "Brokeback Mountain" took a couple major awards, and George Clooney walked off with an Oscar for his supporting performance in "Syriana," a radical, anti-American diatribe.
Brokeback Mountain is not a 'homosexual movie.' It is a film about homosexuals... and, I might add, it's about homosexuals whose reckless behavior leads to severe consequences. And Syriana was a thoughtful exploration of very complicated issues. It wasn't an anti-American diatribe, although it did offer some critical perspectives on American practices that are open for debate. But according to Baehr, it's not just an anti-American diatribe... it's a RADICAL anti-American diatribe.
Someone "Crash"-ed the party for "Brokeback," however, when the provocative and sometimes worthwhile "Crash" beat out "Brokeback Mountain" for Best Picture. Even so, "Crash" contained the highest amount of foul language of any of the major nominees, and the movie had other moral and political flaws.
And as you well know, if a film reflects sinful behavior, then it is sinful, and abhorrent, and disqualified for Christian viewing, right? Come on. People swear. It is not a sin to hear swearing. It is a sin to speak in a foul manner. Crash seemed to me to reflect the way that people often talk to each other in heated exchanges. I hear this kind of language around the big city all the time. It is a symptom of deeper problems, and if we can't portray the symptoms, we can't effectively explore the problem.
Paul Haggis, the writer-director-producer who picked up two Oscars for "Crash," and George Clooney, exposed the neo-Marxist agenda of most of the nominees at the Oscar ceremony.
Haggis quoted Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht, saying, "Art is not a mirror held up to society, it is a hammer by which to shape it."
Wait... Mr. Baehr, aren't you always talking about how Christians in the media need to work to shape culture? Are you claiming to disagree with Brecht on this point?
Clooney, responding to Jon Stewart's point that many people think that most leaders and celebrities in Hollywood are "out of touch" with America, said, "It's good to be out of touch. I'm proud to be out of touch." Clooney then mentioned the involvement of some in Hollywood in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and in promoting awareness of the deadly homosexual sodomy disease, AIDS.
Ummm... why not just call it AIDS? Why qualify it as "the deadly homosexual sodomy disease AIDS"?
The four best movies, and most conservative and Christ-centered movies, receiving any nominations – and pretty minor nominations when you think of it – "Pride & Prejudice," "The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe," "Sophie Scholl" and "Merry Christmas," didn't win any of the major awards.
Do you think this might have anything to do with the fact that they weren't the best options in the categories? Heck, Narnia was lucky to be nominated for Best Special Effects, when Star Wars, Episode Three, a far better achievement in effects, got snubbed! Moreover, Pride and Prejudice, while a good film, was nothing exceedingly remarkable when compared to other recent period pieces, or even the other Jane Austen adaptations. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was a decent, but flawed and rather lackluster, adaptation. Even Christian film critics were rather critical of the film. Sure, the story is wonderful, but Adamson's adaptation was mediocre and his alterations to the story show a lack of understanding and imagination.
And here comes the big finale, which will make your head spin:
Not only are the Oscars out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, they have indeed become an "atheistic pleasure dome" ruled by neo-Marxist liberals and cultural pimps who hate the traditional American family and its Christian values.
Their hatred stems from the communist influence of the Frankfurt School in Germany. The Frankfurt School was started in 1923 by a group of Marxist intellectuals and modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow in the Soviet Union. When Hitler came to power in 1933, these Marxists fled to the United States to teach at famous colleges like Columbia University, Princeton and the University of California at Berkeley. Eventually, they became founders and powerful leaders of the counter-culture revolution in the 1960s. This revolution started the movement for "political correctness" in America.
America's education system, not to mention its government, its popular culture, its military, its business community, and its news media, have been transformed by this insidious Fifth Column of "Cultural Marxism." We are now suffering the consequences of this quiet, politically correct invasion. This is what the current Culture War in Hollywood and America is all about.
It's fascinating, isn't it. It's like he's convinced that the more demeaning labels, incriminating associations, and derogatory remarks he can heap on Hollywood, the more money he will make from his readers. The sad thing is, it probably works. Even sadder, when the mainstream media wants to hold up a representative of Christian engagement with film, Baehr is, more often than not, their choice... even though he consistently argues that good box office is a sign of good work (ridiculous), and that "clean" = "excellent," whereas his standards for "clean" are questionable and his grasp of technical excellence is poor.
Want some more hilarious Baehr-speak? Check out his latest rant about The DaVinci Code!
Preview of Over the Rhine's new album
Courtesy of Over the Rhine's Web site, you can now listen to two tracks from their new live album: Live from Nowhere.
Apparently, there's still time to order your signed copy of this special Limited Edition CD.
And if you've already ordered, but you're wondering why it hasn't arrived, note the NEW SHIP DATE: All pre-ordered copies will ship in late March, after they get back from Middle-Earth. You see, they stumbled into Fangorn Forest, and Treebeard took them hostage in order to ask them to start singing slower songs. "Not so hasty," and all of that...
Oh, by the way... they're touring again.
Michelle Williams and "Brokeback Mountain"
[REVISED, after some second thoughts...]
Thanks to Peter T. Chattaway for catching this...
[ ... AND thanks to Dan Buck for challenging my first post. I got a little too cocky (Can I say that in a post about Brokeback Mountain?), thinking I was responding to the SFC headmaster, when in fact I may have been reacting to a characterization of SFC exaggerated by the journalist who reported on them. ]
'Brokeback' Star Slammed by Former School
Brokeback Mountain actress Michelle Williams has been disowned by her former school because of her role in the controversial gay cowboy romance. Williams, who attended exclusive Santa Fe Christian School in San Diego, California, has been blasted by the school's headmaster as "offensive" for acting the long-suffering wife of a homosexual ranch hand, played by Heath Ledger. Jim Hopson has branded the Oscar nominee a poor role model, and hopes his education establishment won't be linked to the film's themes. He tells the San Diego Union Tribune, [link here] "We don't want to have anything to do with her in relation to that movie. Michelle doesn't represent the values of this institution. Brokeback Mountain basically promotes a lifestyle we don't promote."
Well, the headmaster may hope his education establishment isn't linked to the film's themes... but by making a public statement like this, Santa Fe Christian School of San Diego, California -- a school that I have never heard of until now, in spite of a lifetime in Christian education -- permanently links itself with Brokeback Mountain in my mind.
Better to have just said "No comment." Or, if he had to say something about Williams's career choices, he could have remembered the other career choice she made this year...
Is the headmaster aware that Michelle Williams also played a compassionate, conscientious, Christian missionary woman this year, turning in a fine performance in Wim Wenders' Land of Plenty, which was written by Scott Derrickson? Did he applaud her for giving us the only Christian heroine on the big screen in 2005?
I doubt it. Land of Plenty didn't play in very many places. But you'd think that the school would be tracking the progress of its famous alumni. We do at Seattle Pacific University. (In fact, I can tell you that there's an SPU student in the next Wenders film, Don't Come Knocking.) So if the folks at SFC were aware of it, why not applaud her Land of Plenty role instead of using your moment in the spotlight for nothing more than condemnation of Williams's career choices?
Frankly, it probably would have been best if they'd refused to make a comment altogether. After all, it's not the school's fault that Williams got involved with a misguided film project. And who really looks at a person's adulthood choices and blames their high school? Has anyone watched Michelle Williams in Brokeback Mountain and said to themselves, "Thundering Judas... where did she go to school?" or "What do they teach those kids at SFC?"
If I'd been headmaster, I'd have used the opportunity to point out the role that Williams plays in Brokeback Mountain. The character of Alma is an admirable, beautiful, dedicated mother and wife who senses that her husband is lacking in passion for the family. She eventually leaves him when she finds out that he is lying to her and the children, cheating on her and betraying the family.
Heck, it's Michelle Williams's marvelous performance that gives viewers the best opportunity to learn something really meaningful from Brokeback Mountain -- namely, that infidelity is destructive and dishonest. And further, that there is more meaning in steering yourself to the mature responsibilities of raising a family than in devoting yourself to the pursuit of a self-serving, nostalgia-driven sex fantasy.
It is the human condition--corrupted by sin, we desire things that are different than what we truly need. Brokeback Mountain, like many American films, lifts us our "basic instincts" and glorifies them, painting it as a tragedy when someone isn't allowed to indulge their primal impulses. But we are messed up people, head to toe. "What we want and what we need have been confused," sings Michael Stipe, not knowing how much truth there is in his lyric statement.
Ang Lee's film sends mixed signals: it celebrates true love, but the "true love" it romanticizes is between men who allowed camaraderie to develop beyond brotherly affection so that they plunged headlong into premature and misguided sexual activity. The film wants me to believe that Ennis and Jack would have lived happily ever after if society had allowed them to, but I don't believe that for a second. Their relationship started awkwardly and recklessly. Feeding their misguided sexual impulses, they become addicted to the nostalgic fantasy of continuing their life together on that mountain, serving themselves.
But when Ennis decides to commit himself to something more fruitful--a family--he moves on with his life, and Jack refuses to honor his friend's choices and commitments. In fact, he pursues Ennis, and Ennis gives in. Thus, Jack basically makes a liar and a cheater out of Ennis, and ruins not just Ennis's family, but also his own, which he willingly cultivated by getting married and having kids.
So what is Jack's response when Ennis again tries to wrest himself back onto the right path? Jack turns nasty and selfish, and starts running around with male prostitutes. He sums up the dilemma nicely when he tells Ennis that an occasional sex rendezvous on the mountain won't satiate his appetite: "I can't make it on a few high-altitude f---s every year!"
This is not the behavior of an admirable character. This is the behavior of a man enslaved by his sex drive. Oh sure, Jack stands up for his wife (Anne Hathaway) when his father-in-law behaves badly... but that doesn't change the fact that he's defending the dignity of a family that he himself is undermining.
Ennis isn't so honorable either. In the family, he had a chance to make something meaningful of his life. By restraining his reckless homosexual urges, he was able to make a marriage that filled Alma's life with joy, and brought beautiful girls into the world. It was a foolish choice, if he was continuing to indulge homosexual fantasies, and if he wasn't going to be able to control himself when Jack returned to his life. But if he could have tamed those instincts and made himself an honest husband and a respectable father, becoming a man of responsibility and trustworthiness, his life might have been much richer and more fulfilling. But alas, he let nostalgia and his sex drive -- which is apparently uncontrollable, according to his own words -- destroy that family. (Meanwhile, men and women prove him wrong all the time by learning to control their own sexual appetites, whether they crave pornography, one-night stands, or whatever. People with uncontrollable appetites of any kind should be seeking serious help.)
It was Alma (Williams) who was innocent in the matter, and whose world was fractured by lies and infidelity. I appreciate Ang Lee's mixed-bag-of-a-film because Alma's story is so heartbreaking, true, and tragic. And Williams's work is a gentle and subtle performance. No, she's not perfect... but in this film, she's the one who's nature is to trust, to serve, and to love. Her decision to leave Ennis, well... who can blame her?
And the kids? The film portrays Ennis's daughter as compassionate and forgiving. But earlier in the film, we're led to believe that Ennis and Jack are damaged because of their upbringing. Why look critically upon their parents when Jack and Ennis can't fulfill their own family commitments?
Anyway, I didn't start into this post intending to summarize my review yet again, but the more I look at this film, the more it collapses like a house of cards.
So I guess I'll just call this "my Oscar speech," since the film is bound to win tonight, sending Hollywood into another orgy of self-congratulation, that they have once again stood up for "true love" and "tolerance" and "compassion" ... at the expense of the mind, the heart, and those who will accept their ethic of favoring impulse over integrity.