THE MOVIE CORNER

with Nate Smith
Welcome! Join us for monthly movie reviews from our very own, Audio/Visual/Livestream Communications Associate, Nate Smith.

Given the secular (albeit sometimes graphic) nature of films, there may be certain subject matters that may tempt you to steer clear of a particular film rather than engage it. I challenge you to dialogue rather than monologue. In doing so, truly engage the film rather than treat it as a means of escapism. In this way, we can better assess the layers of a film and get to its core meaning. Armed with biblical truth, we can better discern God’s Truth, in similar ways to dialoguing with the Bible.

December Movie Review: A Charlie Brown Christmas
Genre: Family/Children
Rating: TV-G
Where to Watch: Apple TV+

You don’t truly appreciate something until it’s gone. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” is no exception to this adage. At one point it was the longest running US Television Christmas Special of all time. Once Apple TV+ bought the rights to it back in 2020, however, it was all over for the “Peanuts” gang. “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” then took the reins, still airing on network TV to this day. One now needs to turn to the Apple streaming service to partake in the Charles Schultz Christmas classic. It certainly speaks loudly to our consumerist culture, but it speaks even louder to our placement of Jesus Christ during the holiday season. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” spoke clearly the true meaning of Christmas but has now been placed on the back burner indefinitely. 

We all remember the premise, right? Our favorite klutz, a boy named Charlie Brown, is feeling a little more depressed than usual around Christmas (something many of us can relate to). Being extra down, he questions the real meaning of Christmas. After sifting through all that his small town has to offer, Charlie finally consults with his psychiatrist, Lucy, for a five-cent session. Lucy suggests he direct the town Christmas pageant, centering around the nativity. Getting involved might just do the trick to lift Charlie Brown’s spirits. 

What follows is a whole slew of classic “Peanuts” shenanigans. The kids get assigned parts in the pageant they’re not especially pleased with. “Every Christmas it’s the same, I always play the shepherd,” one of the kids gripes. Lucy and piano prodigy, Schroeder, grapple with the right music for the play. Then comes the most classic debacle of them all: getting the right Christmas tree to spruce up the production. Our boy, Charlie Brown, hops on the task. We all know what commences. He buys the first tree he sees, a scraggly, skimpy and small tree that none of the gang is pleased with. Charlie Brown feels once again he can’t do anything right. Feeling defeated and deflated he exclaims, “Can’t anyone tell me what Christmas is all about?!” To which something quite spectacular happens.

Upon witnessing Charlie Brown’s meltdown during the pageant rehearsal, Linus steps up to plate. “Sure, Charlie Brown. I’ll tell you what it’s all about.” Blanket in hand (a major character trait), Linus takes center stage and goes on to quote scripture (Luke 2:8-14):

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Now, I have seen “A Charlie Brown Christmas” over 30 times at this point and, until recently, I never caught one particular important detail during Linus’ reading of the scripture. He lets go of his “security blanket.” He surrenders to the Lord as he urges his fellow brothers and sisters to do the same: to put down our “blankets” and anything else that might weigh them down, to better revere Christ the King. All along Charlie Brown was searching for the true meaning and spirit of Christmas, when it was the Holy Spirit they needed all along.

It's quite the message that barely made it to the TV screens when the special was released in 1965. Interesting to note here that the TV special was originally produced to promote the true meaning of Christmas amidst all the commercialism of society. The irony of Coca-Cola products being displayed on screen to comprise the show’s sponsorship is not lost on this reviewer. Nor is the fact that Apple now has bought out the show and seems to be holding it hostage for viewers who maybe don’t want to shell out the $9.99/month for a subscription to the streaming service. But the abiding nature of commercialism aside, its original intention was admirable and mirrors the intent of St. Francis of Assisi back in 1223, who created the first nativity scene, to remind people of what Christmas truly means. 

Charles Schultz was able to push his “Peanuts” creation almost 60 years ago now to proclaim the gospel to over 15 million viewers. This didn’t come without a lot of pushback from the executives. Even Bill Melendez (the show’s producer/director) urged the “Peanuts” creator to not be so heavy-handed and to leave scripture out of it. Schultz had this to say: “If we don’t do it, who will?” And here we are, decades later, the message of Jesus Christ and his birth, is once again pulled out of the limelight to make way for the likes of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and other secularized Christmas Specials. “Good Grief,” as Charlie Brown would say. 

The end of the show has Charlie Brown and the rest of the “Peanuts” gang gathering around the skimpy Christmas tree, now dressed up and decorated to look immaculate. [And we have this moment to see all things “made new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).] The credits roll but the show goes on in the background as all the children belt out, “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” for any viewer fortunate enough to truly listen to what it means to have a Savior in Christ our Lord in this holiday season, now and forevermore. 

November Movie Review: The Holdovers
Genre: Comedy/Drama
Rating: R (Language)
Where to Watch: Theaters

Comfort and joy ring loud and true during the holiday season. We gather with family at the holiday table each year and bask in traditions passed down through the generations. In a world that is in a continuous whirlwind of change, it is indeed comforting and joyous to share something constant like the holidays with family and friends. The holiday season also brings a time for reflection. A wave of nostalgia may wash over us as we reflect on the course of life thus far. 

“The Holdovers” is a film that builds on tradition and nostalgia, and is all the more welcoming for it. It’s a film I found so inviting that I didn’t want to leave when the film was over. Like a warm distant memory, “The Holdovers” sets the table for all of us to gather and remember a simpler, yet simultaneously complex, time in our lives: our youth. 

Set in a prestigious boarding school, Barton Academy, in Massachusetts during Christmas, “The Holdovers” tells the story of a troubled student, Angus Tully, who is unexpectedly forced to stay at school during Christmas break. Tully is held over (hence the film’s title) but not left alone. Cantankerous ancient history professor Paul Hunham, is begrudgingly given the task of supervising this “delinquent.” This doesn’t stop Hunham from assigning a full study schedule to the already miserable student. 

Misery loves company when it comes to Hunham and Tully, who equally despise one another. What commences is an explosive and unlikely bond between the free-spirited and young Tully and the grouchy Hunham, who is dead-set on preserving traditional values amidst a changing world (circa 1970). “Integrity is a punchline,” Hunham scoffs when referring to the political climate of the times. 

It's here we see a startling contrast. Hunham represents tradition and a resistance to change. Tully is just the opposite. He is young and rebellious. Much to Tully’s dismay, Hunham is a huge advocate for history, as he views it as a template to teach the future. History is more than the past, “History is an explanation of the present,” Hunham points out. Tully simply views history as “the past is the past.” 

Director Alexander Payne, who brought us the equally tender-hearted and Oscar-winning “Sideways” almost two decades ago, works this contrast of beliefs into an interesting film aesthetic. The film is shot and processed to look like a movie set in the early 1970’s. Film grain is even incorporated into the film’s look to give us the feeling of familiarity and nostalgia. Using such a traditional cinematic device, we, the audience, are able to get comfortable, while the film challenges us with life’s lessons.

A few of these life lessons are taught by a small, yet pertinent character to the story. Barton’s kitchen manager, Mary, acts as the voice of tough love and compassion throughout this film. She is a catalyst for change and often questions and challenges Hunham’s tactics and reminds him that he can’t assume every student at Barton is a privileged child with a perfect home life. 

As the changing world battles tradition, so does Tully battle Hunham. Throughout the picture it becomes abundantly clear that the common ground these two share is that of misery. More importantly, they are both hurt people, who have it out for the world that has hurt them. Hunham breaks it down to Tully in this way: “I find the world a bitter and complicated place. And it feels the same way about me. You and I have that in common, I think.”

With a lack of visually distracting aesthetics, Alexander Payne allows us to sit still with these two individuals and really listen. In doing so, we not only learn more of what these characters have in common, we learn more about ourselves and our relationship to an ever-changing world. We’re given a template, from which to study and learn from so we’re not destined to make the same mistakes. But if history has taught us anything, we inevitably do time and time again. 

What we learn is that “The Holdovers” is that change will inevitably come for all of us. Because the future is unwritten, change can bring fear. At one point in the picture, Professor Hunham stares trepidatiously down at a blank journal that was gifted to him. “I don’t know. There are a lot of empty pages,” he says. 

It’s the chains of the past that bind both our protagonists in different ways. Hunham is anchored to Barton. He was once a student and now a teacher. Tully is bound by a traumatic past centered around his estranged father. He can’t seem to shake the pull of his family tree. Together the two learn how to break free of the past and become open to change.

As each of us are on our own journey in life, we come to the table changed from the year before. We find ways to live and adapt, all the while leaning on a constant and forgiving God, who brings grace, at this time of year when tidings of comfort and joy abound.

October Movie Review: The Wonderful World of Henry Sugar
Genre: Comedy
Rating: PG
Where to Watch: Netflix

At the core of any work of art is simply story, and yet story is rarely simplistic. Jesus, as we have recorded in the Gospels, used story to teach people about the kingdom of heaven. His stories, or parables, are rich with meaning and can be read and re-read throughout one’s life to gain access to all that can be learned and experienced through them.

Storytellers still use parables today to convey truths or reveal something of human nature. These parables can take the form of short literary works, extended narratives or even films. Take Wes Anderson’s newest movie endeavor, “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar,” adapted from a Roald Dahl (a la “Matilda” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) short story of the same name, which tells us a modern-day parable. In this short film (only 40 minutes in length), Anderson delivers his familiar trademarks of “ubiquitous symmetry, tableau-style composition, sparse and deliberate color pallets and extended takes”* to tell the story of Henry Sugar, is a greedy and pompous gentleman who desires only one thing: more. More of everything. But especially more money. His ten-million-dollar fortune just doesn’t suit him anymore. At a gathering of rich and high society individuals, Henry wanders into a library where he stumbles upon a doctor’s notebook entitled, “The Man Who Can See Without Eyes.” Wes Anderson unfolds the story in his typical theatrical fashion as Henry reads out loud the tale of Imdad Khan who, as the case study so accurately refers to him, is a man who can see without eyes. Through a staged and gleefully playful reenactment, we learn of Khan, who gains the miraculous ability to see with his eyes closed. What Henry Sugar sees in the story isn’t so much the miraculous gift learned by Khan. It’s the possibility of getting richer. Mr. Sugar devotes years developing the art of being able to see playing cards face down. Upon mastering the craft, he hits the casinos and makes more money than he could have possibly imagined, eventually making him the richest man in the world. As before, however, he soon grows bored with his fortune and becomes discontent. At one point Henry literally tosses his most recent earnings out the window in disgust. Upon seeing how ecstatic the pedestrians were at finding money just floating down from the heavens, Henry suddenly realizes a new joy. Not one of material possessions, but one of giving things away. Henry Sugar then makes it his mission to give as much to the world as his bank account would allow, eventually dying a happy and satisfied man.

Wes Anderson’s film creates the atmosphere of “children’s theatre” in this Roald Dahl adaptation, inviting us to see with the eyes of children into this larger-than-life parable. In doing so, the parable’s message becomes more vivid and more relatable. A truly miraculous gift. As I engaged with Wes Anderson’s latest work, I couldn’t help but to picture Jesus, teaching parables on the hilltops to anyone willing to lend an ear. I imagined the children flocking around him (as alluded to in Matthew 19:14: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these), escaping into a fictional world, and being taken up into a greater vision of life lived well.

At the very core of “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar,” is a wonderful story of the consequence of greed and the rewards of giving to others. In this way, the short film plays homage to the Parable of the Rich Fool told in Luke 12: 13-21, in which Jesus warns us to guard ourselves against all influences of greed, which harden our hearts. Though the filmmaker doesn’t reference scripture specifically, he doesn’t really need to. God’s message can ring true through all types of storytelling be it secular or Christian. I encourage everyone to give 40 minutes of their time to “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar” and see for yourself how God’s truth and message filter through modern-day parables.

*www.videomaker.com/ho-to/directing/storytelling/what-can-we-learn-from-the-wes-anderson-style/

September Movie Review: Jurassic Park
Rating: PG-13 (Intense Science Fiction Suspense)
Where to Watch: Peacock (Free); Amazon (Rental)

For those five of you who have not witnessed the cinematic feat and treat known as “Jurassic Park,” I implore you to watch it right away. Even better, take advantage of the current 35th Anniversary 3D re-release in theaters now. You might be surprised, as I was, just how well the film still holds up. I’m not embarrassed to say this was in fact my 5th time seeing this epic piece of filmmaking on the big screen. The first time was upon its initial release in the summer of 1993.

Dinosaurs have been a subject of the motion picture arts since the advent of stop-motion photography in 1898. It was utilized famously in such classics from the 1925’s “The Lost World,” or Henry Levin’s 1959 film adaptation of Jules Verne’s “Journey to the Center of the Earth.” But when I mention dinosaur motion pictures, do any really hold a match to “Jurassic Park”? And why 35 years after its release does it still hold such significance?

I remember at the age of 12, going to the movies with my father to witness the movie of the year (later named one of the films of the century), “Jurassic Park.” At the end of the film, my dad and I walked out, stunned by what we had just been through. Never had dinosaurs been captured so accurately and so fiercely as they had in this film. My father told me stories of how his dad had taken him to dinosaur movies “back in the day,” but nothing of this caliber. This was high praise, as my dad was one of the toughest critics out there. Being a Methodist pastor of almost 15 years at that point, he had more to say about the movie than just how awesome the dinosaurs looked. “What do you think the message of that was, Nathaniel?” he asked. “Don’t mess with dinosaurs,” I quickly replied. Dad laughed.

“That’s true,” he said, “but also don’t mess with God’s nature.”

It was years later that my father’s wise take on “Jurassic Park” really sunk in. I had always struggled with Proverbs 9:10, which tells us “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” But fear, as we know it, really means reverence in this scripture verse. And not just reverence to God himself, but also God’s creation. We are called to respect God’s handiwork and be good stewards of it. But humanity often has other plans for God’s creation, doesn’t it? In the case of Jurassic Park, it did not end well for us. The film opened with a slew of armed guards and head of security, Muldoon, gripping assault rifles, as they looked toward a curious rustling in the bushes. One would assume it was a dinosaur ready to pounce on the unsuspecting guards. Instead, it was a steel cage being moved into position by a large crane. In the cage, we see glimpses of a velociraptor’s eyes and then sickle-shaped talon-like claws as it grips onto one of the workers during the unloading process. It’s a terrifying opening scene, as much as it is a lesson. How can we control such a powerful force of nature, if we can barely preserve our own human-made creations, such as a cage. Essentially, we cannot, nor should we, cage God’s nature.

This theme is made more and more pronounced throughout the picture. At one point two of our main characters, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil) and his fellow paleontologist, Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) stare at a computer monitor with their team. They are analyzing new dinosaur bones found beneath the surface using  state-of-the-art technology. Alan touches the monitor accidently, causing it to glitch out. Human-made technology has never been failsafe.

Later, the two are propositioned to visit a mysterious park on a secret island by John Hammond (Sir Richard Attenborough), who tells them it is “right up [their] alley.” In exchange for an endorsement, Hammond agrees to finance Alan and Ellie’s digs for the next five years. An offer they can’t refuse. Before we know it, we’re in a helicopter heading to the island, Isla Nubla, with our paleontologists, the shady Mr. Hammond, as well as a quirky chaos theorist, Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), and lawyer, Donald (Martin Ferrero). Upon touching down on the helicopter pad, Alan struggles with properly fastening his seat belt. He eventually gives up and just ties the two loose ends together. It’s comical but true. We cannot fully trust man’s inventions one-hundred percent of the time. But we can trust God’s. We soon discover with our protagonists what this park is all about. Dinosaurs! Cloned from dino-DNA extracted from prehistoric mosquitoes caught in tree sap. Bringing an extinct species back to life, let alone exhibiting them in a park, troubles Alan and Ellie as they argue that it’s too unpredictable to take what nature has deemed extinct, and bring it into our modern eco-system. Malcolm piggybacks on this argument and delivers the quote that carries a lot of weight for the rest of the movie: “Your scientists were too preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think whether or not they should.” The prominent themes of control over God’s creation come literally crashing down, once power is lost in the park and the biggest dino of them all, the T-Rex, tears open the electrical fence and wreaks havoc on our heroes (who really called that this could happen all along). In a sequence too amazing and perfect to summate in just one review, the tyrannosaurus rex proves to be the driving antagonistic force in the film.

But there’s an additional driving force of God’s nature that doesn’t get the credit it deserves: the velociraptor from the beginning of the film! The raptor shows its teeth in the third act when it finally gets its revenge on security personnel, Muldoon. The raptor scene further exemplifies the point that God’s nature was not meant to be manufactured, nor contained. Unbeknownst to the park’s head of security, as well as the audience, this raptor had been planning its payback with the help of two fellow raptors, “that you didn’t even know were there.” In this light, this dinosaur plays as guardian of God’s creation. Trying to rectify the natural order in the only way the animal knows how: its own God-given carnivorous nature. The end scene is more beautiful and powerful than I remember as a 12-year-old. The survivors gaze out the helicopter window as they fly far away from the island. They spot a flock of seagulls flying freely over the ocean water. It’s a calming shot, but it’s also a pivotal one. It shows humanity how we should approach God and all God’s creatures. With respect. With reverence. Just as we should treat God and all God’s creation.

August’s Movie Review: Barbenheimer
Where to Watch: Theaters

What on earth is a Barbenheimer? In case the reader hasn’t put it together, “Oppenheimer” + “Barbie” = “Barbenheimer.” Yes. It’s actually a thing. Social media let it happen, and so now here we are. Two huge mainstream Hollywood productions going hand to hand in the boxing ring known as the Box-Office on the same opening weekend. Not the first time this has happened, but it’s the first time something like this has reeled so many back into the movie theaters for a good old-fashioned communal movie-going experience. Both films delivered in their own right. But it’s not just the box office success both Hollywood Summer Blockbusters shared, but a very powerful theme. More on that later.

First, let’s delve into what both of these films actually offer. Oppenheimer is an epic bio-pic about the notorious American scientist and inventor of the Atomic Bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer. It’s brought to the screen in glorious 70mm by acclaimed filmmaker Christopher Nolan (of “Memento” and “The Dark Knight” trilogy fame). Nolan has become one of the Hollywood leaders when it comes to big-budget production. Rumor has it the IMAX film print of the film is approximately 11 miles long. His movies are extensive, to say the least, but with his fast-paced directorial style, the films feel surprisingly short. “Oppenheimer,” in particular, packs a lot into its 3-hour runtime. There’s plenty of ground to cover, and Nolan isn’t afraid to tackle it with an extremely close attention to detail. Nolan is probably most famous for his use of time and structure within his works. Time itself is always a character in this director’s oeuvre. For the real film buffs out there, you may remember “Memento” sweeping the film festival circuit back in 2000. The film is told in a backward order of events to help illustrate the protagonist's handicap of short term memory loss. His latest endeavor, “Oppenheimer,” plays with the concept of time, as well. He cleverly treats the movie like a ticking time bomb (pun intended). We have the history books to tell us what happens in the events leading up to and after the infamous A-Bomb testing in the New Mexican desert (Los Alamos to be exact). But with a rousing original score (by composer: Ludwig Gorensson), immersive cinematography (Director of Photography: Hoyte Van Hoytema) and brisk editing style (Editor: Jennifer Lame), we, the audience, are propelled into a race we didn’t know we signed onto. This filmmaking approach expertly mirrors the actual historic race for the USA to build a nuclear weapon before Russia and Germany. Spoiler: The bomb goes off halfway through the film, yet the audience still grips to their seat for the remaining 90 minutes thanks to Nolan’s brilliant aesthetics.

“Barbie” probably needs a little less of an introduction. Thankfully, this film refuses to take the easy way out. As a result of the creative, albeit feminist, artistry of filmmaker, Greta Gerwig (of “Lady Bird” and “Little Women” fame), “Barbie” takes quite the spin on the popular American doll. In lieu of giving us a straightforward screen adaptation as previous Toy-to-movie vehicles have in the past (“Transformers” or “G.I. Joe,” for example), “Barbie” takes a huge “meta-turn” in the vein of “The Lego Movie,” throwing us, the viewer, into the mix. Barbie (played so joyfully by Margot Robbie) and her “annoying” admirer, Ken (Ryan Gosling in all his stoic splendor), seek out their makers, Mattel (yes, the actual company), outside the borders of “Barbie Land,” in search of existential truth. 

Both films take huge creative risks with their story-telling styles. And not surprisingly, both films raked-in big bucks at the box-office. As I’m writing this, “Barbie” has brought in over $1 billion and is now the biggest Warner Brothers motion picture to date. For its hard R-rating, “Oppenheimer” also surprised with its numbers. Theaters were thriving on opening weekend thanks to both films as many moviegoers took to the movies for a double-feature. Hence, “Barbenheimer.”

The two films share more in common than their successes, however. There’s a common thread of creation throughout both pictures. And, interestingly enough, just as common a thread having to do with destruction. 

“Oppenheimer” may be the best movie ever made about destruction. But it’s also one of the best films about creation.  Here we have a human figure who sets out to create a weapon of mass destruction. Oppenheimer in the process of creating, was symbiotically also destructing. Believe it or not, the means of creating the A-bomb, were better intentioned than we were told in the books. Building, creating, the bomb was more to frighten enemies away and protect our country than to actually “blow them up.” But, unfortunately, as it was morosely mentioned in the film by philanthropist Lewis Strauss (played by Robert Downey Jr.), “We all know what happens next.” Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. 

Philippians 4:8 tells us:
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

Let's take a look at what it means to dwell on these things.

Easier said than done in today’s culture, for sure. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that mankind has the long-running reputation of perverting beauty, perverting what is good. We love to build things up, as much as we like to tear them down. Think of the crowds brought in by huge bridge or building demolitions. I don’t see a lot of people stopping traffic to look up and admire building construction. We may marvel at the creation, but we internally crave the opposite.

What in the world does “Barbie” have to do with this? Well, Barbie didn't create herself. We have American businesswoman and inventor, Ruth Handler, to thank for that. Her creation of the Barbie doll influenced the likes of millions of young girls across the world. The intention was good. Innocent at that. Astronaut Barbie, Cowgirl Barbie, Working-Girl Barbie, etc. all aimed to open the eyes of little girls everywhere and encourage them to push towards their dreams and realize their full potential. What eventually happened? The slimly molded dolls spoke differently to the female demographic, as far as body-image was concerned. The shape of Barbie, in turn, helped to shape the image of how culture viewed women. The result was unbeknownst to the creator, just as the ultimate consequence of the A-bomb was to Oppenheimer.

Creation and the desire to invent is God-given. It brings Glory to God, in fact. Genesis 1:31 says, “God saw all that He had made and it was very good.” This passage may be interpreted and paraphrased as, “God blesses creation of all shapes and forms.” Even when we create/invent with our own hands, it ultimately comes from Him, the ultimate creator of all things. It’s our God-given duty, however, to be good stewards of such creations. Many know Genesis 1:28 as the Cultural Mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Jeremiah 29:5-6 brings the point further home by encouraging us to, “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease.”

In short, create. It’s not only God-ordained, it’s also mandated. Obviously, God isn’t talking dolls and bombs here. But the message is one of responsible creativity and artistry that applies to both our movie subjects. Oppenheimer had a responsibility, as did Handler. And so did the filmmakers in telling their stories. The important thing to recognize here is artistic integrity. Just because you can create something, doesn’t necessarily mean you should. But just as humans can turn creation into destruction, good into bad. God sets the example in reverse, turning bad into good: a model mentioned in Romans 8:28: “And we know that God calls all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” A most pertinent page to take from The Good Book. To be good stewards of our own creations, and in turn, God’s.

July’s Movie Review: Asteroid City
Genre: Comedy
Rated: PG-13 
Where to Watch: Theaters, Amazon/Vudu/Apple TV+ (Rental)

As far back as the 1950’s, people flocked to cinemas to see a good old-fashioned silver-screened spectacle of beings visiting from another world. Alien invasion films were a curious genre and science fiction movies were intended to be slightly frightful, as they reflected the real-life terror of Communist invasion in America. 1953’s War of the Worlds did this very well. 

Currently, the genre has transitioned from a spectacle to crowded and formulaic. Leave it to filmmaker, Wes Anderson, to bring the tired genre back with an artistic flare. Anderson’s unique style of deadpan comedy and flippant human drama shines in Asteroid City, the story of a group of complete strangers who are sequestered against their will in a small desert town by the name of – you guessed it – Asteroid City. Jason Schwartzman plays a widower who meets up in Asteroid City with his father-in-law, played with typical finesse by Tom Hanks. Scarlett Johansson is an aspiring Hollywood Actress who is accompanied by her daughter. Steve Carrell is back to his comedic chops, playing a quirky motel owner whose business in “the middle of nowhere” is expectedly not booming. Things get interesting really fast, when an alien signal is detected and the US Government decides to quarantine the town, leaving everyone on standby to await further instructions.

It's at the point we realize that we’re in for a much different take on the sci-fi subgenre of “invasion.” The impending “visit” from outside our sphere is less of a spectacle, and more of an inconvenience to our protagonists, who gripe and moan about the circumstances and just wish to get on their way. It’s only the kids that appear to be curious and excitable, constantly bombarding their elders with questions, as children often do. In contrast, the adult characters almost seem so bored with their own existence, that they couldn't care less about the existence of extraterrestrial life forms. 

Per a traditional Wes Anderson approach, the director refuses to let his three-act structured film be taken at face value. This is made most evident, when the director takes us deeper into this quiet, desert-town motif, to see it for what it really is: a staged production. No, really. We’re constantly being made aware we are watching a scripted piece. The performers move and land their lines so succinctly with the camera, that it draws the audience’s attention to the production at hand. There are also periodic flashbacks of a script writer (Edward Norton) working on a stage production called, “Asteroid City,” alongside the play’s hired director, played by Adrienne Brody. The film’s surplus of star power even serves as an intentional distraction, reminding us “this is only a movie.” There’s quite the thick screen set up between us and the story at hand. 

By the time our alien friends pay us a visit in the film, the payoff is so anticlimactic it’s almost comical. The focus was never on other-worldly beings. The focus was on us, as regular terrestrials invading, all along. The movie plays within its limits until it doesn’t, and lets its fourth wall crumble. This gives us quite the “meta” ticket into the world of these uninspired characters, packed tightly together on this stage known as Asteroid City. We watch as our heroes struggle to understand their carefully studied existence, as if they know they’re being watched. Not just from space, but from the viewer. The characters play out every scene as if it were a well-rehearsed inside joke. We’re only welcome to join in on the fun if we want to. And, believe me, we do. 

Anderson’s ability to mirror humanity in a playful fashion pays off here. By drawing so much attention to the camera and performances, we’re able to understand this art up close and personal. We are loudly made aware that we are real and what we see on screen are mirror images of ourselves. Life-like caricatures, if you will. There is no thin line between life and art here. The two imitate each other simultaneously in such a cut and dry manner, we’re left only to study ourselves. Never mind the aliens. 

This way of separating the audience so much from the film allows one to really look inward and evaluate their day-to-day interactions with one other amidst the chaos of the present times. Have we become numb to being able to acknowledge any miracle that God may give us at any given moment? Are we too drowned in our own environments to be able to look above the surface of our everyday lives to really see truth in meaning? The question Asteroid City asks isn’t the old-age one of whether or not aliens exist. It’s the question of what we base our truth in. There’s the staged truth, we see brilliantly executed in the film itself. Then there’s THE truth (God’s truth), we see exemplified throughout scripture where it lays out God’s truth as self-evident. St. Thomas Aquinas in his theologies calls attention to John 14:6 where it says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” St. Thomas goes on to explain this “truth” as being self-evident:

Because whoever denies that there is truth concedes that there is truth, for if there is no truth, then it is true that there is no truth. But if something is true, then it follows that there is truth. But God is truth itself. Therefore, that God exists is self-evident.

It's in deciphering the approach to truth that makes Asteroid City more fun than it has a right to be. The film truly is a comedy of errors. But it’s in the execution that it becomes abundantly clear that it’s a movie and it’s ok to sit down and play with the characters. To search for the Truth alongside them, even while acknowledging the faults in their approach. The steadiness of the camera work and the tight framing/blocking of its actors create a doll-like glaze to the film’s presentation as a whole, better enabling us to take on a childlike wonder and approach the film more whimsically, playing out real life through the protagonist caricatures. Asteroid City begs us to look within ourselves for the answers, as we relate to the characters we see on screen. And in doing so it pushes us, as Christians, to look up to God, the real stage director, for the production that is our lives.

June’s Series Review: The Chosen
Genre: Drama
Rated: TV-PG
Where to Watch: Peacock (Seasons 1-2), Amazon Prime (Seasons 1-2), Angel Studios (Website; Seasons 1-3)

Message matters. But, so do the sender and receiver of that message. This is a classic communications model. How we receive a message relies on a multitude of factors, personal beliefs being a primary. How a message is sent is of particular importance as the sender must expressly heed how the message is presented. Take “The Chosen,” for example. Here we have a visual dramatic representation of scripture. Many of us are already quite familiar with the message of the Bible, and we’ve been overwhelmed by a plethora of interpretations over the years. For better, but oftentimes for worse.

One could argue that “the greatest story ever told” has not been told to its fullest potential, in a visual medium. At least not for a while. The era of epic biblical productions like Cecil B. Demille’s “The Ten Commandments” or the Richard Burton led “The Robe,” has subsided. Perhaps because in more recent years, TV/Film adaptations have relied more heavily on telling the story rather than showing it. It’s understandable, as showing Christ’s message for us to experience and relate to, instead of just laying it out verbatim, is a daunting task. But luckily, it’s one that “The Chosen” creator, Dallas Jenkins, has taken on. The message is there. But, so is the production quality. Mood-invoking lighting, genuine performances (Jonathan Roumie gives us one of the finest portrayals of Jesus in history), and modern cinematographic techniques enrich the message in such a way to open the door for better audience reception. I recently heard one Christian viewer exclaim, “I’ve been waiting for a show like this my whole life.” 

In addition, “The Chosen” extrapolates storyline from between the biblical verses in a respectful manner to allow for a more dramatic interpretation of the scriptures. For instance, writing a pleasantly witty sense of humor into Jesus’ character, or hinting that one of the disciples, Matthew, may have some traits commonly associated with autism, is of artistic integrity that, frankly, makes the characters and dialogue all the more intriguing. 

Episode 1, entitled “Homecoming,” in Season 3, captures the Sermon on the Mount, in a way that makes us feel as if we’re physically there hearing Jesus’ preaching for the first time. We’ve all heard the phrase, “You had to be there,” when recounting an event or series of events that are hard to fully grasp unless you had seen it with your own eyes. Dallas Jenkins takes this into account and delivers this well-known sermon in such a visual spectacle that we are finally able to understand the significance of Jesus’ words along with the people of that day. The character Matthew, on recounting what is now known as the Sermon on the Mount, emphasizes that the words of God’s Truth are so evident in “the way [Jesus] is saying them.” In other words, “You had to be there.” With such a significant budget and high production value, it is the closest we will ever get to witnessing this sermon ourselves.

The entertainment industry, Christian or not, is still an industry. And it needs money to fuel its productions. Through a massive crowd-funding campaign (the largest on record, as a matter of fact), the production team for “The Chosen” was able to gain access to necessary tools (top of the line equipment, skillful crew, etc.) and resources (more than one streaming platform), in order to launch a full-scale production of – Do I dare say it?-biblical proportions. 

There’s no getting around the fact that the way we view TV and film has changed exponentially. The technical feats some of these productions are able to achieve have continuously raised the bar of visual storytelling. Dallas Jenkins knows this. And not only does he know it, he embraces it. He realized the message needed to be repackaged and shown to modern audiences in a way that didn’t make us feel as though we are watching a “corny” 80’s/90’s Christian PSA, or reading a heavy-handed Christian tract (how else did we get such a cartoonish version of the devil in our heads?).  Many Christian productions of that past came across as behind the times and, thus, not very well received. And it’s unfortunate that because of this, Christian labeled “anything” (be it music, film, etc) has garnered a bad reputation, especially amongst secular audiences. 

Why should we care what the secular audiences think? Well, for one, it should be the very demographic Christian productions aim to serve. Otherwise, as Christians, we’re just being self-serving and self-gratifying. We’re breathing recycled air. We’re not breaching the “Christian bubble” and spreading the message to those who truly need it. We’re telling the stories over and over again amongst ourselves and not into the world, and when we do tell them to the world, we tell them in the same fashion of yester years. We pat ourselves on the back and say, “good job,” all the while onlookers shake their heads and scoff. That’s not the way such an important message should be handled. 

Now I’m not saying this Christian mentality of living comfortably in a bubble stops with “The Chosen.” I’ll admit that I’ve been a naysayer of this program for some time. I felt it wasn’t telling Christians anything they didn’t already know. I mentioned this point to my mother-in-law recently, who is an avid fan of the show. Her immediate response: “It’s not meant for us, it’s meant for non-believers.” A wonderful sentiment for sure. But how is it then that no secular-entertainment insider talks about it? From my knowledge and research, the show never makes any top news in the Hollywood trades (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, etc.), even though it is proclaimed to be one of the most viewed programs. Ever. Sadly, it seems the bubble hasn’t completely popped.

But this doesn’t have to be the case. Like the Sermon on the Mount, this show’s message should be shouted on the hilltop for the people in the back to hear. At a very pertinent moment in the show, Jesus sincerely asks Judas, a soon to be new disciple, “Are you ready to change the world?” Without skipping a beat, Judas responds with a heartfelt, “Yes!” “The Chosen” asks this of us, and even gives us a tool, the show itself, to do it. But it’s still treading water. Matthew 16:24 says, “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” Just like Jesus, it’s almost as if the show beckons us to take its message the rest of the way. The message that is “The Chosen” is packaged in such a way that it should be palatable to any receiver in this secular day and age. But it’s missing one crucial component. The sender. 

I wish I could offer up a simple solution. The masses are going to watch what they’re going to watch. Shows like “The Chosen” don’t hold a match to popular shows like HBO’s “Succession” or AMC’s long-running “The Walking Dead” have. But Christianity, as we well know, isn’t easy. Not then. Not now. Not ever. But that shouldn’t keep us from taking on our God-given role as the sender and doing our due diligence to see the message received. Perhaps the greatest message ever sent or received. God’s Love and Grace for each and every viewer out there.

May’s Movie Review: Mrs. Davis
Genre:  Sci-fi/Comedy/Adventure
Rating: TV-MA (language, some violence, adult situations)
Where to Watch: Peacock (streaming)

I’m noticing a lot of God talk lately, and maybe not in the most positive light. But there is a lot of talk, nonetheless. Given our tumultuous times, it’s no surprise people are struggling to find comfort in something, or on the flip-side, seeking to find something/someone to blame for any “unfairness” they may have endured. Who better than God as a scapegoat? But whether it’s reverence or anger towards Him, God has become, dare I say, more prevalent in our culture. Take the upcoming Judy Blume adaptation, Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret, for example. The title itself speaks volumes of our culture’s recognition and need of something bigger than ourselves. Then there’s Mrs. Davis, which recently found its way onto the Peacock streaming platform, and is now one of the top shows.

I mentioned this show recently to Dr. Michael Hegeman of Pinnacle Presbyterian Church and the Fran Park Center, who’s immediate question was, “Is it British?” “No,” I responded. “It’s about a nun who finds her higher calling from an AI source: to seek out and find the Holy Grail.” That’s to say, this program is as far from British programing as you can get. That is, unless, you compare it to BBC shows like Dr. Who, which certainly goes out of its way to explore mind-expanding aspects of the universe and our place in it. But unlike Dr. Who, Mrs. Davis pushes the envelope in terms of asking core questions of human existence, using our infatuation with technology, and more specifically artificial intelligence, as a basis of questioning our relationship to a higher being, and ultimately each other. 

The title character, Mrs. Davis, is not our protagonist nun. Mrs. Davis is in fact the most advanced form of artificial intelligence yet achieved. Mrs. Davis essentially plays the role of God in that “it” looks over our entire world and even helps to guide humanity in its day-to-day living. Enter Sister Simone (played by Betty Gilpin), a tough and outspoken nun who chooses not to follow this higher power, also known as “the algorithm.” Simone may have given up on Mrs. Davis, but Mrs. Davis has not given up on Simone. Through its devoted followers, it seeks Simone out to call her for a mission: To search and acquire the Holy Grail. Rather than simply accept this mission, Simone, in her stubborn nature, decides to bargain instead. Simone is still bitter from being pushed out of her convent, thanks to Mrs. Davis (you’ll have to watch the show). So, in exchange for the Holy Grail, Simone wishes for this AI god to destroy itself. To our surprise, Mrs. Davis reluctantly agrees. What follows is an absurd albeit zany adventure through an alternate world where technology carries more weight than religion, spirituality, or any other aspect of humanity, for that matter. Not such a far-fetched concept for today. 

At one point in the show, Simone teams up with a resistance group, who shares in the nun’s quest to dismantle Mrs. Davis. Through her steadfast faith, Simone, together with the resistance, fights to break free of the “strings” Mrs. Davis has so wrongfully placed on society. The resistance group pushes the notion that humankind should have “wings and not strings.” In other words, free will and not a enslavement to our own creations. 

In the process of asking questions about God and faith, the show seems to acknowledge God’s very existence. Even if it does scoff at Him a bit, it still recognizes God. Not only that, but it also uses God as a standard for which anyone or anything (ie. Mrs. Davis) should live up to but always seem to fall short. Upon viewing the first five episodes (there will be 8 in total), I couldn’t stop thinking about the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11:1-9 tells us of God’s people who stumble onto the land of Shinar, where they proceed to build a city with a towering structure. The goal of such a feat, was to reach the heavens, namely God, so that they “may make a name for ourselves.” God observed such doing and was far from pleased. God proceeded to change their unified language into many, thus dividing the peoples, as they had no means of communicating with one another. With no clear line of communication among the masses, the construction of the tower ultimately failed. Thus, there was no way to reach God’s level, so to speak. 

This Bible story always spooked me as a child. It equally unnerves me as an adult, but for more daunting reasons. When we’re young, we often interpret the Bible literally. In many, if not most instances, this is a proper approach. But the Tower of Babel story carries too much weight to take it so simply and literally. It certainly stands for itself in explaining the differences of language across our vast world. It also reasons to illustrate the dangers of “playing God,” instead of fearing/revering God. Building a human-made structure to reach Heaven, completely bypasses God’s love and mission for us. Instead, humanity chooses to go its own way and find its own means to getting to Heaven. 

This theme of “playing God” plays very heavily in Mrs. Davis. In a sense it uses technology, more specifically AI, as a metaphor for the Tower of Babel. We live in a society where we feel the need to know everything, or as much as we can gather. I’d go so far as to say the worldwide web itself wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for humankind’s obsession with knowledge.

In this month’s Courageous Conversations event, the Fran Park Center hosted a discussion about the role AI has in today’s society and where our faith stands in relation. It appears human beings have become so obsessed with knowledge, that they now want to recreate a means, or rather a vessel, of knowledge itself, most notably through artificial intelligence. Now if this isn’t an attempt to play God, I don’t know what is. I keep thinking of that quote from the film Jurassic Park. When confronting a real moral conundrum of humanity’s tampering with God’s created world, (in this case, dinosaur cloning), actor Jeff Goldblum’s character Ian Malcolm curtly says, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Much like Sister Simone’s quest for knowledge via the Holy Grail, many seek to build their own Holy Grail. If I can so boldly say, they want a god on their own terms and not God on God’s terms. Mrs. Davis gives us the chance to hold up our own creations to the light of the “something bigger than ourselves,” namely God. 

What impresses me about the show is not just its fantastically unique writing and approach to modern religious themes. It’s the questions it so boldly asks and questions it leads us to ask ourselves in turn. Not just the run-of-the-mill existential questions we’ve seen other secular arts tackle before, but more audacious ones, such as: Why do we need a God in the first place? And what exactly is faith if/when you have proof of God’s existence? In a recent interview, actress Betty Gilpin talks about her character Simone’s human relationship with Jesus on the show. Yes. You read that correctly. Simone has a romantic relationship with Jesus. This definitely takes the metaphor of the church as Christ’s bride literally (Ephesians 5:21-24). But before one screams “Blasphemy!” and runs for the hills, let’s take a look at what Gilpin says about this dynamic on the show: 

That was an interesting entry point for me to think about Simone’s faith. She started her life of faith with proof. She’s not imagining that there’s someone out there who she believes in. She has the person, right there. His face is in her hands. Something we explore throughout the show is, what does that mean, if you are a person of faith and you are starting with proof? What actually is faith, if you have the answers first?

It's much more convenient for humanity to trust in what they see. AI, for instance. And it’s much harder to take the leap of faith we’re all called to do. It comes down again to how much we know and are able to know. Just as a dog can only know so much, similarly, human beings can only know so much. Take Isaiah 55:8-9, for instance: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways  And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Job 11:7 furthers this concept asking, “Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?” This is all by way of acknowledging that our threshold will be met, and the all-knowing/all-caring God takes it from there. It would be easier to find comfort in not knowing. But that’s just not the society we are born into. But it can be the mentality we maintain while sifting through today’s crazy culture. This show may not be for everyone, but it does mirror and explore our inner desire to know more. About our world. About God.

April’s Movie Review: The Whale
R (Adult Language, Sexual Content)
Where to Watch: Amazon Prime/Apple + (Rental)

It doesn’t take five minutes into Director Darren Aronofsky’s (“Noah,” “Black Swan”) “The Whale” to realize you’re in for an uncomfortable experience. While not for the faint of heart, rest assured there’s something deeply rooted in the film worth exploring. I’ll admit, spending two hours watching Oscar-Winning Brendan Fraser (Best Actor for this film) act out the despair of a 600-pound man doesn’t sound appealing. I can say with confidence that it most definitely is. 

Fraser plays Charlie, a chronically obese English teacher, who spends his days lecturing online (circa 2016) and binging copious amounts of food as he mourns the tragic death of his partner, Alan. Amongst the wreckage of his secluded and self-destructive life is an estranged daughter, Ellie (played confidently by Sadie Sink from “Stranger Things” fame). Charlie desperately tries to reconnect with Ellie upon being diagnosed with congestive heart failure by his only friend, Liz (Hong Chau - also nominated for a Best-Supporting Actress Oscar this past year). Liz is a nurse, who exercises tough love, telling Charlie to get to a hospital immediately, alas risk not living to see the end of the week.

Charlie accepts his fate, as he feels he has failed life and has no purpose. We learn of the many mistakes Charlie has made throughout the years. The biggest one, leaving his wife, Mary (Samantha Morton), and young daughter, Ellie, for Alan, his lover. Torn with guilt and regret, Charlie tries everything in his power to reconnect with Ellie, who wants nothing to do with him. Charlie strikes a deal with her, he’ll help with her school essays, as she’s in danger of flunking, and in return she spends time with him. Ellie doesn’t shy away from letting Charlie know just how awful he is and how disgusted she is with him. We, the audience, are equally disgusted by both Charlie’s character and his life choices. 

But what’s most uncomfortable about the film isn’t so much the man in front of our eyes, but the connection we undoubtedly share with his soul. Inside, we see a broken man who seeks forgiveness and grace. If only just from his daughter. Charlie truly believes his soul will be cleansed if his daughter can only see how regretful and repentant, he really is. Assisting him on this spiritual journey is a young door-to-door evangelist, Thomas (Ty Simpkins), who pops in and out throughout the film, convinced he’s been called to save Charlie’s soul so he may be admitted into Heaven. Thomas, as we soon come to find out, isn’t much of a Saint himself, and he too seeks forgiveness. Both Thomas and Charlie meet in the middle. Perhaps they can save each other. 

Credit due to Darren Aronofsky, who offers a sensible approach to the sensitive material at hand. Choosing to shoot the film in a small 4:3 aspect ratio (instead of the typical widescreen format), Aronofsky takes the audience by the hand and helps us to feel the claustrophobic nature of Charlie’s small apartment, and helps us to better relate to the sense that his world is closing in on him. Aside from a couple short flashbacks, we are stuck in this confined space with Charlie for the duration of the film. It forces us to really sit down with the character and to experience the discomfort right along with him. In this light, the director almost puts us in the intentional position to judge Charlie in all of his misgivings. But through the spiritual journey that is “The Whale,” we choose not to. Instead, we start to care for him. 

At one part of the film, Charlie asks, “Do you ever get the feeling people are incapable of caring?” In a way, Charlie is almost pleading with the audience to care for and forgive him, as we ourselves need and should seek forgiveness. It’s moments like this Aronofsky begs us to look closer. To look deeper within this monstrous man to recognize a bit more of ourselves. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The Book of Romans also makes its way into this film in less subtle and more poignant ways. Thomas reads to Charlie from Romans 8:12-13: “Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation – but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” It’s here, my Christian brothers and sisters, we realize we’ve been watching this film all wrong. We’ve been like Ellie all along. We’re angry at Charlie’s actions, we’re disgusted by his appearance. Frankly, we do not want to love this man. But through this scripture, and through Charlie’s seeking of forgiveness, we see that he is a child of God. He is worthy of the Grace of God. And he is made in God’s image.

I won’t spoil the surrealistic ending that Aronofsky chose to bring the message home. But I will say it’s a powerful one and needs to be witnessed for one’s self to truly grasp the significance of one man’s existential path. In it, the filmmaker gives us a glimpse (perhaps unknowingly) of the awesome and magnificent power of Christ’s forgiveness of us all. If that’s not worth two hours of discomfort, I don’t know what is. It’s all worth it in the end. In this movie. In our lives.

March’s Movie Review: Jesus Revolution
I did not want to see this film. In fact, at one point I openly refused. I asked myself how far can a film entitled “Jesus Revolution” go with a title that could leave out a fairly large demographic? What secular society would flock to go see a movie thematically about Jesus in this day and age? People scoff at His name, especially given the circumstances of these rather harsh times. To me, a movie called “Jesus Revolution” is not going to accomplish what it sets out to do. To spread the love and the Word of Jesus Christ. Was I right? In some respects, yes. But I was also dead wrong. 

The box office has spoken. “Jesus Revolution” took in over $15 million on its opening weekend. It is not bad given the results of previous Christian productions, though it doesn’t begin to compete with the likes of Marvel movies and other mainstream releases. What’s even more unfortunate, is that when large church groups (and very few outsiders) attend the theater for films of this nature, it brings in money the first weekend but not in further box office reports. Thus, it further stagnates the success of the Christian film genre. To sum it up, box office results for this genre of Jesus film just don’t rake it in. And I’m sorry. Titles such as “Jesus Revolution” just don’t help this cause.

It’s a shame because this film is exactly the Christian film we’ve been waiting for. One that speaks truth from ALL sides. Many Christian films have a tendency of building a bubble around them. Christians go and see them and then talk to other Christians about them. The films don’t typically bleed into secular culture. With an honest portrayal of the times, this film actually dares to defy the limits. 

“Jesus Revolution” tells the story of a radical movement that took place in the late 60’s/early 70’s. “Which one?” would be a viable question. Through all the riots and protests and various other movements circling around this time period, there’s one in particular that got a little buried in the history books. Even though this revolution made the front cover of Time Magazine back in ’72, officially calling it, “The Jesus Revolution.” Ironically this magazine cover appeared just a few years after Time published a cover article entitled, “Is God Dead?” The movie itself follows main protagonist and future evangelist Greg Laurie, as he breaks the chains of societal restraint and seeks “the truth,” as so many of his other fellow hippies. As our other protagonist, Chuck Smith (a Southern California preacher at a small chapel called Calvary) says, these hippies are “searching for all the right answers in all the wrong places.” It is through the drug, sex, and rock n’ roll culture of this era that a young Greg Laurie finds this to be true. And he finds this truth through an extremely charismatic character named Lonnie Frisbee (yes, like the toy). Lonnie (played by Jonathan Roumie from The Chosen) looks, preaches, and acts like a modern day Jesus. When Lonnie and Pastor Chuck Smith (played with such heart by beloved actor, Kelsey Grammer) finally cross paths, it’s a meeting/clash of the minds. Chuck’s church is afraid of change. And the congregation and elders are especially scared and appalled by these rambunctious and debaucherous hippies. 

Lonnie challenges Pastor Chuck to open their church doors, as so many other churches have shut them. After all, doesn’t God’s Truth belong to all? “Their bare feet are ruining our carpets” one of the church leaders angrily protests. Watch Pastor Chuck in the subsequent scene washing every single one of these hippies’ feet as they enter the doors of the sanctuary for Sunday Worship. It’s an equal parts touching and telling scene. The epitome of “What Would Jesus Do?” (another notable Christian movement). This scene in particular popped the Christian bubble and let us see into the Church for what it should really stand for. Open arms, open doors. 

The very essence of this film is in fact about Jesus and a much-needed revolution. A much-needed Christian revival both then and now. The title speaks the truth! And it’s unabashed in doing so. By being so blunt and forthright in calling the movie “Jesus Revolution,” it’s stating the calling we are all called to fulfill. To speak God’s Word and his truth, regardless of the contexts.  Chuck’s wife at one part of the movie reassures her husband that the truth is there, but that “truth is quiet. It’s the lies that are loud.” “Jesus Revolution” strived to make it’s truth, and ultimately God’s truth, loud, by even just it’s title. 

God can speak to us in many ways. It’s not just the Word that we can engage in a conversation with God. It is and can be films like this. And perhaps it’s not about the box office numbers after all. Perhaps a movie like this gives us the uncomfortable task of breaching the Christian borders and sharing the Word via “Jesus Revolution” expanding outside the bubble. So let’s be uncomfortable. And let’s be bold. As Chuck, Greg and Lonnie state in a few instances throughout the film, “This is the Word of God. This is Life. Let’s open it together.”

February’s Movie Review: Women Talking
Women Talking is a film that mirrors its characters. Quiet but extremely poignant. It tackles a difficult issue, but does so with velvet gloves. I hesitate to even tell you, the reader, what this film is about. I fear the gravity of the thematic material might steer many away, when in fact you should run to the nearest theater and see it for yourself. 

The film opens with a title card that alludes that what you are about to witness is a work of the “female imagination.” Although it is a work of fiction (a 2018 novel of the same name by Miriam Toews), it is inspired by actual events that took place some time ago (circa early 2000’s) in an isolated Bolivian Mennonite colony.  Over 150 women were assaulted by males within their own community over the course of only a few years.

Already, I can see heads turning away. Haven’t we heard enough of this matter? We’ve seen so much of this via the #metoo movement, what else is there to talk about? The answer: a lot. Though, we have heard much on this matter in recent news, there is still much more dialogue to be had.

Having just accused a man of sexual assault, a group of women are given a tough choice: Forgive the accused person and they all will be able to reside in their colony and eventually gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. If no forgiveness is granted, they forego their salvation. The irony is that this law is bestowed by the very people these women are being accosted by. 

A group of women rally together in a barn loft to discuss their own options. Led fearlessly by the likes of actors Claire Foy (“The Crown”), Rooney Mara (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo), Jessie Buckley (The Lost Daughter) and Francis McDormand (Fargo), these women lay out two choices: Flee the land they’ve made their own, or stay and fight. Both are easier said than done.

It’s easy for my demographic (40’s, male) to dismiss the work as being “not my film.” One might as well say, “it’s not my discussion.” But why shouldn’t it be? Why shouldn’t we all talk about this? Award Winning Writer/Director, Sarah Polley (The Stories We Tell), invites everyone to join in on the conversation and opens the floor up for a solid discussion. But on one condition. We really listen to what’s being said. It’s in this regard, Polley makes a bold move and introduces a male protagonist, August (played effortlessly by Ben Winshaw (the voice of a children’s book favorite in the movie, Paddington)). Through his gentle and quiet nature, August invites the male demographic into the room to observe through his eyes, his lens, the atrocities inflicted on our main female protagonists. He is given the responsibility of taking down the minutes/notes of the meetings that commence. But is able to tune in on what exactly is being said and, in the process, gives us permission to, as well. 

From here it’s a spitfire of piercing points of deliberation. “Can one truly forgive, if they are forced to?” asked one. There is anger. There are tears. But in the end, there is hope. And yes, to answer your burning question, most of the film does indeed take place in the loft, with the exception of various flashbacks. Some of these images are harrowing, some beautiful, but all stunningly shot by Cinematographer, Luc Montpellier (who expertly avoids the “male gaze,” which so often exploits women on screen). His stark, de-saturated imagery subtly reflects the not so black and white world these women live in. 

But to forgive. To really forgive. What does it mean? And at what cost? There’s an aura of innocence seen in the barn loft with the presence of two young girls. They are mostly silent. But their presence is loud, as they serve as juxtaposition to the harsh subject matter they are being subjected to. The message here is clear, the women’s choices in that room will someday show through the lives of these little girls. 

The answer to the dilemma at hand is not simple. Nor is forgiveness, for that matter. As men and women of the Christian faith we are called to forgive. But do we really know what forgiveness entails? Forgiveness doesn’t mean we can’t be angry, even infuriated, by inflictions from the hands of our enemy. It doesn’t mean we forget. But it does mean we give these inflictions to God, and in doing so allow better the forgiver to align with God. For this reviewer, this act models God’s Love stronger than any other. Maybe because it’s the toughest thing to do sometimes. But maybe more so because we know that deep down, this is exactly what Christ wants for us. To draw nearer to Him. Christ exemplified this to the highest extent by giving up His life on the Cross. “Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). This act of forgiveness alone bridges the gap between man and God. Just as Christ urges us to not turn our backs to the cross, Sarah Polley implores us to not leave the discussion at hand. But to really grasp the gravitas of the situation. The women don’t just represent one demographic, but they represent each one of us (both male and female) as they deliberate back and forth what it means to forgive, for the sake of their lives (ie. their Salvation).

Unlike Christ, however, the women talking may not be giving up their lives in the physical sense. Rather they are forced to face one of mankind’s biggest fears, the unknown. Much like Christ must have feared, even whilst knowing he would sit beside his Father in Heaven. Whether these brave individuals in the loft choose to stay or go, it’s still unknown what will come of them and the future of their children.  One of the main characters turns all of this on its head by stating, “Freedom is good…It’s better than slavery. And forgiveness is good, better than revenge. And hope for the unknown is good, better than hatred of the familiar.” Blatantly put, but it does steer our attention to the most important theme of this magnificent film, Hope. Despite all the anger, the tears, the fear, there remains one powerful force that should drive all of us during these tumultuous times. Hope.

And so I urge you, Brothers and Sisters, not to turn away from this conversation. But to engage it full on. Primetime host Larry King once said, “I’ve never learned anything from talking.” So talk. But in doing so, really listen to Women Talking. I, for one, am thankful I did.