"Empire" strikes again
At The Guardian, author J.G. Ballard remembers the premiere of the movie about his childhood, my favorite Steven Spielberg drama: Empire of the Sun.
Surprisingly, it was the film premiere in Hollywood, the fount of most of our planet's fantasies, that brought everything down to earth. A wonderful night for any novelist, and a reminder of the limits of the printed word. Sitting with the sober British contingent, surrounded by everyone from Dolly Parton to Sean Connery, I thought Spielberg's film would be drowned by the shimmer of mink and the diamond glitter. But once the curtains parted the audience was gripped. Chevy Chase, sitting next to me, seemed to think he was watching a newsreel, crying: "Oh, oh . . . !" and leaping out of his seat as if ready to rush the screen in defence of young [Christian] Bale.
Nate Bell's best of 2005
Just as it's possible to bridge the great divide between the sexes, between black and white, between Republican and Democrat... so we can also take comfort in finding common ground between people from Seattle Pacific University and people from Biola University.Read more
Is Mel Gibson worried about what critics will think of "Apocalypto"?
"After what I experienced with The Passion ... I frankly don’t give a flying f--- about much of what they think..." said Christian hero Mel Gibson.
More, in TIME.
Screenwriter John August: The Difference Between Professionals and Amateurs
John August, who wrote Big Fish and the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, delivered this amusing, enlightening speech at Trinity University last week, explaining the the differences between writers who are professionals and writers who are amateurs.Read more
Mercir is Big News!
One of my favorite earthlings, my co-worker Rachel Eby, is an uncommonly joyful person. And she has some good reasons to be joyful.
Not only is she savoring the mystery of not knowing whether she's about to have a boy or a girl in May...Read more
A Movieguide Survivor Responds to the Previous Post
This comment was added to my previous post, and I'm grateful to Sean Gaffney for his input and perspective.
Wow, Jeff, where to begin.
I had the interesting experience of writing freelance reviews for Movie Guide years ago (way too far down the food chain to even meet the founder). On one hand, I feel for you, brother. On the other – congratulations! If Mr. Baehr thinks you deserve attack, it probably means you are doing quality work.
And my heart goes out to all the reviewers working under Mr. Baehr – it is very hard to love movies and work within the guidelines of the Guide. When I wrote for them, there were a few people there (my immediate editor, for one) that did indeed love movies, thought quality was important, and wanted to shift the conversation to a deeper look at movies and the language of art.
Instead, the pressure is to focus on content, and skew the review towards the number of swear words. I remember being forced to justify how I could say a movie was excellent in quality when my review clearly listed foul language and immoral content. In other words, how could the cinematography be any good if an actor says the f-word?
Jeff, please do not take it to heart when someone with that mentality criticizes the reviews written by real critics such as yourself. Ted Baehr long ago let go of any actual care about cinema, or about art criticism (and admits it every time he claims that his “reviews” are about advocacy, and not “movie reviews in a journalistic sense”). You will note in Mr. Baehr’s “review” of Sophie Scholl, he was only able to come up with two sentences that addressed something other than the subject matter of the film: “The reason that the movie has gotten so many awards and great reviews is that it is so well produced. Every element rings true.” That is the sum total of Mr. Baehr’s ability and desire to look at quality.
So when he criticizes CT’s list of best movies, he doesn’t have “best” in mind; that word means something completely different to him than it does to Webster.
Same with the label “liberal.” Folks get upset when megaphone crazy people like Mr. Baehr spit that word at them – especially if, like CT, they are not liberal. But don’t bother looking the word up to understand what Mr. Baehr means; it is a wasteful exercise. What Mr. Baehr means by “liberal” is “not my personal brand of conservative.”
By his definition, anyone who is moderate qualifies (including moderate Republicans). Or anyone that has an open mind on issues, who doesn’t rush in throwing stones, but rather waits to hear what the Rabbi writing on the ground has to say. Thinking, rather than being told what to think; asking questions; considering the text of the Bible directly rather than the text of Mr. Baehr; thinking that Jesus taught about caring for the poor, sharing with one another and finding what can be loved in our enemies; -- all acts of “not my personal brand of conservative.”
The prophets have never been the favorites of the established church – especially of those that are comfortable with their established power and prestige, those that “love to sit at the head of the table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues.” And can you blame them?
If you were Ted Baehr, would you want someone running around telling people that “any who have ears to hear should listen and understand!”
I know I wouldn’t.
-Sean Gaffney
There He Goes Again: Ted Baehr Slanders Christianity Today On the Air.
Yesterday during the James D. Kennedy Coral Ridge Broadcast, Ted Baehr once again slandered Christianity Today and my colleagues in Christian film criticism. And in the meantime, he either got the facts wrong, or he lied... you decide.
From a friend who heard the broadcast:
Ted Baehr (who starts the broadcast by taking credit for The Passion, Chronicles of Narnia, Madagascar, and other films) notes that he gave The Passion a “movie of the year” award last year.
Then he says: "Christianity Today gave it to a movie about an abortionist and didn’t even put Passion of the Christ in their top ten. So the problem is the Left dictates a lot of the views of the increasingly liberal evangelical community. So we’re losing the church to the emperor’s new clothes. …”
Kennedy replies: “I have been increasingly disappointed with Christianity Today in recent years because of that seemingly liberal trend that’s going on there. I don’t know what’s going on there, but somebody’s apparently sneaked into their departments and are making a big change.”
Hooo, boy... where to start?
1) I would like to hear the directors of The Passion, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Madagascar asked what they estimate the influence of Ted Baehr was on their finished films. I would like to hear what they think about the impact he claims to have made on them.
2.) I would like Baehr to show me some evidence... anything at all... showing that Christianity Today gave their "movie of the year" award to a film about an abortionist.
We gave our "movie of the year award" last year to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's not about an abortionist.
Is he referring to Vera Drake? That film was #9 in our critics' list of the Top Ten for 2004. Vera Drake is, indeed, about an abortionist... an abortionist who is so naive that she tells "troubled young women" that the solution to their problems is an abortion, which is laughable, because she also tells them that the solution to their other soul-crushing problems is a good serving of tea and biscuits.
It's a film about the way we treat each other with naivete... the way that compassion sometimes isn't enough, and discernment is called for. The film does not portray Vera Drake as some valorous champion. She's really quite pathetic. Hers is the most dangerous kind of care... care unchecked by intellect. She would solve a headache by sweetly and gently beheading the sufferer.
Moreover, the film powerfully portrays the destructive potential of those who react to abortionists with irrational hatred and violence and rage.
It's a fair and challenging film. It is, as Baehr says, "about an abortionist." So what? It is not "recommending abortion." It is Baehr's opinion that a filmmaker cannot addres the subject of abortion in a film, or examine different characters in their opinions and choices?
As for The Passion of the Christ... it is indeed a powerful and important film, and Christianity Tody devoted more articles and attention to that film than any film in history. But the critics who voted on the films they thought were the best-made rated it just shy of ten other films. It was a true and powerful representation of the Gospel. But just because a movie portrays the Gospel doesn't make it the Greatest Movie Ever Made, and the CT critics did not find great enough artistic achievement there to merit a Best Film award.
3.) Baehr says, "So the problem is the Left dictates a lot of the views of the increasingly liberal evangelical community."
I challenge Mr. Baehr to show me one instance at Christianity Today in which "the Left dictated" a view to us and we embraced it.
I do not take dictation when I write reviews. I respond honestly, from my head and heart. Likewise, the critics at Christianity Today express their own opinions, quite thoughtfully in most cases. They assess art in all of its aspects, rather than subjecting works of art to a checklist judgement (the kind Baehr himself employs at Movieguide), judging it by how may cusses they count or glimpses of skin that occur.
4.) And Mr. Kennedy says: "I have been increasingly disappointed with Christianity Today in recent years because of that seemingly liberal trend that’s going on there. I don’t know what’s going on there, but somebody’s apparently sneaked into their departments and are making a big change."
I encourage either Kennedy or Baehr to call out who it is that they think "sneaked" into CT. I'd like to know how exactly someone "sneaks" in there. I'd like them to point to the change that has caused what they see as a devastating change. And I'd like Kennedy to define what he means by "that seemingly liberal trend." Does he mean that it is "liberal" to examine art, its level of excellence, and the meaning that it reflects? If so, count me as one who seeks to be "liberated"!
Let it be known that the head of the Christian Film and Television Commission is not speaking for the whole Christian film criticism community. And of the dozens of Christian film critics published online, I know of very few who would say that Baehr represents their idea of thoughtful, thorough film criticism.
In fact, his idea of film reviewing (don't forget, he has come out and said very clearly in the past that, in spite of his views, he is "not a film reviewer") is a very different thing than what I understand as the responsibility of the conscientious and discerning art critic. If you're interested in just how clearly he contradicts himself on this point, check this out.
I love the illustration of "The Emperor's New Clothes." I just think it applies to this situation in a very different way than Baehr thinks it does. The truest statement in that excerpt comes from Kennedy, when he says: "I don’t know what’s going on there." That shows how, as Christian engagement with the arts continues to deepen and grow, he is being, to borrow a phrase popular among evangelicals, "left behind."
My Trendsetting Haircut
I've never thought of Looking Closer as a trend-setting site. But Entertainment Weekly has noticed that apparently my haircut is starting a wave of variations.
I'm so proud to be influencing culture. I'd like to thank the Academy.
I'm sorry, guys. You only wish you were this sexy!
Oh, and by the way, that photo is of me trying to survive the trailer for Failure to Launch. Man... that title is such a gift to critics who have to write about it.
Sarris on "Sophie Scholl: The Final Days" - the raves continue
Andrew Sarris (The New York Observer) on Sophie Scholl: The Final Days:
Another surprise — perhaps as much for you as for me — is that in her last days, Sophie doesn’t emerge as some kind of secular saint, but rather as a deep believer in her mother’s Protestant Lutheran faith. Hence, when the German prison chaplain comes to give her the last rites, she explicitly beseeches him to entrust her soul to God’s mercy — this despite the agnosticism preached to her by her own beloved father from early childhood. This seeming psychological incongruity made Sophie more human and more heroic to me, as well as more worthy of the deep respect that George Bernard Shaw and Danish filmmaker Carl Dreyer expressed for Saint Joan.