Monday, August 25, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
When Someone Calls You And Asks You To Pray...
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/08/donald_miller_t.html
"...a man who’s more thoughtful in his answers and less bullyish, not as simple of a thinker, even as reality is not simple..."
Hmmm...
Just my thoughts,
Sean
"...a man who’s more thoughtful in his answers and less bullyish, not as simple of a thinker, even as reality is not simple..."
Hmmm...
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Worth a Revisit
My book club just met in the cozy, dark bar of the Smokehouse (haunt of Hollywood types from Hope to Clooney) to discuss BRIDESHEAD REVISITED.
I haven’t seen the movie, and as I liked the novel, I’m not likely to see the movie.
Heard a personal review of the movie from Barbara’s blog (scroll down to “Brideshead Eviscerated”); she didn’t like it. Accused it of being anti-Catholic, and thus a bad adaptation – as the novel, in her opinion, is pro-Catholic.
As I was reading, with Barbara’s critique in my head, I started to wonder if maybe she was wrong about the book.
I mean, here are all these Christian characters, and they are so messed up! Maybe Evelyn Waugh wasn’t as fond of the church as Barbara felt.
And of course, upon finishing, I realized that it is the very fact that these Christians are so messed up that makes this such a strong Catholic novel.
Because it is a novel about, in Waugh’s own words: “…the operation of divine grace on a group of diverse but closely connected characters.”
The movie, according to the testimony of the creators, is a tragedy about how the Church causes so much unhappiness in the lives and loves of the characters.
Ironic, because (and this is a spoiler for you) – in the book, point by point, it isn't the Church that causes the unhappiness.
Julia's painful marriage is outside of the Church (changed to being with a Catholic in the film).
And it isn’t the Church at all that causes Charles and Julia to separate in the final "tragic" moments. The filmmakers have to go out of their way to twist Waugh's writing in order to make it anti-Church.
You see, Julia has already left the Church years before her breakup; rather it is Julia’s love for G-d that causes the woman and the book's protagonist to separate.
Julia knows she has to choose between lovers, and the Almighty is really her only choice. Not because of rules, or disapproving looks, or guilt.
But because of love – that harder love that sticks even when we don’t want it.
As Julia herself says: “I’ve always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again, punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God. I can’t shut myself out from his mercy.”
The entire novel, in fact, is about grace chasing down those that need it most.
The brilliance of the writing is how this sneaks up on the reader – a novel about prodigals at the last moment is revealed to have been all along a novel about a Father running towards his child.
Shouldn’t be a surprise really. Waugh told us this was coming – the unexpected – in a little throw-away about a quarter of the way through the book.
“But of course,” she said, “it’s very unexpected for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, but the gospel is simply a catalogue of unexpected things. It’s not expected that an ox and an ass should worship at the crib. Animals are always doing the oddest things in the lives of the saints. It’s all part of the poetry, the Alice-in-Wonderland side, of religion.”
Here’s to the fun and whip-smart book about animals doing the oddest things.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
I haven’t seen the movie, and as I liked the novel, I’m not likely to see the movie.
Heard a personal review of the movie from Barbara’s blog (scroll down to “Brideshead Eviscerated”); she didn’t like it. Accused it of being anti-Catholic, and thus a bad adaptation – as the novel, in her opinion, is pro-Catholic.
As I was reading, with Barbara’s critique in my head, I started to wonder if maybe she was wrong about the book.
I mean, here are all these Christian characters, and they are so messed up! Maybe Evelyn Waugh wasn’t as fond of the church as Barbara felt.
And of course, upon finishing, I realized that it is the very fact that these Christians are so messed up that makes this such a strong Catholic novel.
Because it is a novel about, in Waugh’s own words: “…the operation of divine grace on a group of diverse but closely connected characters.”
The movie, according to the testimony of the creators, is a tragedy about how the Church causes so much unhappiness in the lives and loves of the characters.
Ironic, because (and this is a spoiler for you) – in the book, point by point, it isn't the Church that causes the unhappiness.
Julia's painful marriage is outside of the Church (changed to being with a Catholic in the film).
And it isn’t the Church at all that causes Charles and Julia to separate in the final "tragic" moments. The filmmakers have to go out of their way to twist Waugh's writing in order to make it anti-Church.
You see, Julia has already left the Church years before her breakup; rather it is Julia’s love for G-d that causes the woman and the book's protagonist to separate.
Julia knows she has to choose between lovers, and the Almighty is really her only choice. Not because of rules, or disapproving looks, or guilt.
But because of love – that harder love that sticks even when we don’t want it.
As Julia herself says: “I’ve always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again, punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God. I can’t shut myself out from his mercy.”
The entire novel, in fact, is about grace chasing down those that need it most.
The brilliance of the writing is how this sneaks up on the reader – a novel about prodigals at the last moment is revealed to have been all along a novel about a Father running towards his child.
Shouldn’t be a surprise really. Waugh told us this was coming – the unexpected – in a little throw-away about a quarter of the way through the book.
“But of course,” she said, “it’s very unexpected for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, but the gospel is simply a catalogue of unexpected things. It’s not expected that an ox and an ass should worship at the crib. Animals are always doing the oddest things in the lives of the saints. It’s all part of the poetry, the Alice-in-Wonderland side, of religion.”
Here’s to the fun and whip-smart book about animals doing the oddest things.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Journalist Covering Fake Journalist
I wanted to write today about Star Wars, or Brideshead Revisited, or Harry Potter. But alas, Im' on deadline for a paying gig, so those topics will have to wait.
In the meantime, here's a NYTimes piece on my favorite serious journalist. (Thanks to Susan Kelly for the head's up.)
Enjoy.
-Sean
Monday, August 18, 2008
Shakespeare and Soderbergh
When I was leaving New York oh so many years ago, I wanted to treat myself to something special, something truly New Yorkian.
My gift was taking a day out of my busy packing and wrapping up schedule to stand in line for tickets to THE TEMPEST in Central Park, starring Patrick Stewart. A better departing gift I can not imagine.
(Although the water-proof boots from the Franco’s count right up there, as I was moving to Seattle.)
Shakespeare in the Park is a long-standing tradition, marked by standing in long lines. I understand the system has been cleaned up, but in my day the “free” tickets required three lines and a full day’s commitment.
Which translated to picnicking, Frisbee, a strolling puppeteer offering five-minute versions of the play you are to see, and a wide variety of buskers.
All culminating in an outdoor performance, always memorable (Denzel Washington portrayed the best Richard III I’ve ever seen) if not always agreeable (my head still hurts when I think of the drum-pounding, migraine-inducing TITUS ANDRONICUS).
And always pure populist New York.
Which is why I’m still chuckling over this brilliant Onion Satire, announcing the next season of “Soderbergh in the Park.”
From the article, as the artistic director justifies staging one of Soderbergh’s lesser works, OCEAN’S TWELVE:
"The mission of Soderbergh in the Park has always been to bring Soderbergh to the masses," Fletcher said. "And that includes even his more inaccessible material. Those who are skeptical will be pleased to find that many of the traditional Soderberghian themes are present in Ocean's Twelve: anger, betrayal, despair, the travails of cool wealthy people who plan crime capers, and brotherhood."
Brilliant.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
My gift was taking a day out of my busy packing and wrapping up schedule to stand in line for tickets to THE TEMPEST in Central Park, starring Patrick Stewart. A better departing gift I can not imagine.
(Although the water-proof boots from the Franco’s count right up there, as I was moving to Seattle.)
Shakespeare in the Park is a long-standing tradition, marked by standing in long lines. I understand the system has been cleaned up, but in my day the “free” tickets required three lines and a full day’s commitment.
Which translated to picnicking, Frisbee, a strolling puppeteer offering five-minute versions of the play you are to see, and a wide variety of buskers.
All culminating in an outdoor performance, always memorable (Denzel Washington portrayed the best Richard III I’ve ever seen) if not always agreeable (my head still hurts when I think of the drum-pounding, migraine-inducing TITUS ANDRONICUS).
And always pure populist New York.
Which is why I’m still chuckling over this brilliant Onion Satire, announcing the next season of “Soderbergh in the Park.”
From the article, as the artistic director justifies staging one of Soderbergh’s lesser works, OCEAN’S TWELVE:
"The mission of Soderbergh in the Park has always been to bring Soderbergh to the masses," Fletcher said. "And that includes even his more inaccessible material. Those who are skeptical will be pleased to find that many of the traditional Soderberghian themes are present in Ocean's Twelve: anger, betrayal, despair, the travails of cool wealthy people who plan crime capers, and brotherhood."
Brilliant.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Friday, August 15, 2008
For the Better, or For the Good?
(Warning: Slight spoiler alerts ahead.)
There’s a list of things in my life that I only have come across because I love my wife.
That list has two parts – first, the “yes, I love my wife, see I did this” part.
That list includes things like eating broccoli on occasion, sitting through yet another amateur production of a Tennessee Williams play, and scooping up kitty poop.
The second part – the “wow, my wife is cool ‘cuz I never would have found this if it weren’t for her!”
That list includes SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE, whatever-is-in-the-cupboard nachos, and the movie ENCHANTED.
And now add to the list the musical WICKED.
I wasn’t too excited to see WICKED, what I assumed to be a simplistic musical exploiting the popularity of THE WIZARD OF OZ. Sure it would be cute, and probably somewhat humorous, akin to a skit put on by the youth group at a church.
But as a sacrifice for an anniversary present? Hey, there are worse things to suffer, so spending a day getting tickets and sitting through the show was an easy call.
And wow.
I mean, Wow.
Complex story-telling, intricate themes, sweet reversals. Marvelous music, very fine performances, interesting characters.
From the beginning, as the Ozians sing what should be a straight-forward “nobody mourns the wicked,” the audience is treated to a sophisticated subtext. Side-long glances and masked looks of concern show that this celebration has an undercurrent of unease – what if I’m fou
nd out to be wicked? ("For all have sinned...")
And as to stage craft, let me just say that when a certain little someone decides to actually defy gravity, my wife grabbed my arm and gasped in delight.
The conceit of the show puts all we know about Oz on its ear – good is maybe not so good, bad (in a spin on Mae West) may be even better. One would think that fans of the movie would be upset by the changes – but not so, as the rabid nine-year old Dorothy fans behind us made clear.
They loved it – maybe even more than casual fans of the Emerald City, because they knew it was written for them.
You see, everything isn’t just altered – all changes and character choices are justified, point by point, with hints from the story.
Think about it: Frank Baum’s Wizard is a humbug, a phony, right?
So run with the idea that a fake is running the government, spinning himself and his actions into something grander than it really is – and you have an idea of what is going on in WICKED.
WICKED nestles itself quite neatly into Oz Lore (we’re talking the Hollywood lore, here, people), allowing for both to exist simultaneously.
It’s all there, with a delicious explanation: the pointed hat, the shoes, the broom, the bucket of water. Even the heartlessness of the Tin Man, the freakiness of the monkeys, and why that Lion is so cowardly.
And for the book lovers, on every page is a throw-away meant for you. The non-readers won’t even know they are there. (At one point a character says “time is running out. Tic-toc!”)
I do wonder what Frank Baum would think of the piece. He wasn’t a fan of big themes, or romance – felt both were too over the heads of children. And I think he may have seen too much of himself in this new Wizard to be comfortable.
But yet again, he may
well have seen this re-imagining as personally redemptive.
In one part of the story line, Elphaba makes a stand for the disenfranchised, trying to protect the extermination of the talking animal minority.
Baum wrote an editorial once about the obvious abuses that the US was making against the American Indians during his day. He thought that we had gone so far, in fact, that the only way to be safe from retaliation would be the complete extermination of the Native American race.
It’s a claim he only made once, I think. And I would like to believe a scenario he regretted even contemplating. I would like to think that he would admire Elphaba for her courage and righteousness, and wish to see himself in her shoes (or pointed hat, as the case may be).
I don’t think it is a mistake that WICKED, while sending Oz askew, sets Baum’s world aright.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
There’s a list of things in my life that I only have come across because I love my wife.
That list has two parts – first, the “yes, I love my wife, see I did this” part.
That list includes things like eating broccoli on occasion, sitting through yet another amateur production of a Tennessee Williams play, and scooping up kitty poop.
The second part – the “wow, my wife is cool ‘cuz I never would have found this if it weren’t for her!”
That list includes SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE, whatever-is-in-the-cupboard nachos, and the movie ENCHANTED.
And now add to the list the musical WICKED.
I wasn’t too excited to see WICKED, what I assumed to be a simplistic musical exploiting the popularity of THE WIZARD OF OZ. Sure it would be cute, and probably somewhat humorous, akin to a skit put on by the youth group at a church.
But as a sacrifice for an anniversary present? Hey, there are worse things to suffer, so spending a day getting tickets and sitting through the show was an easy call.
And wow.
I mean, Wow.
Complex story-telling, intricate themes, sweet reversals. Marvelous music, very fine performances, interesting characters.
From the beginning, as the Ozians sing what should be a straight-forward “nobody mourns the wicked,” the audience is treated to a sophisticated subtext. Side-long glances and masked looks of concern show that this celebration has an undercurrent of unease – what if I’m fou
nd out to be wicked? ("For all have sinned...")And as to stage craft, let me just say that when a certain little someone decides to actually defy gravity, my wife grabbed my arm and gasped in delight.
The conceit of the show puts all we know about Oz on its ear – good is maybe not so good, bad (in a spin on Mae West) may be even better. One would think that fans of the movie would be upset by the changes – but not so, as the rabid nine-year old Dorothy fans behind us made clear.
They loved it – maybe even more than casual fans of the Emerald City, because they knew it was written for them.
You see, everything isn’t just altered – all changes and character choices are justified, point by point, with hints from the story.
Think about it: Frank Baum’s Wizard is a humbug, a phony, right?
So run with the idea that a fake is running the government, spinning himself and his actions into something grander than it really is – and you have an idea of what is going on in WICKED.
WICKED nestles itself quite neatly into Oz Lore (we’re talking the Hollywood lore, here, people), allowing for both to exist simultaneously.
It’s all there, with a delicious explanation: the pointed hat, the shoes, the broom, the bucket of water. Even the heartlessness of the Tin Man, the freakiness of the monkeys, and why that Lion is so cowardly.
And for the book lovers, on every page is a throw-away meant for you. The non-readers won’t even know they are there. (At one point a character says “time is running out. Tic-toc!”)
I do wonder what Frank Baum would think of the piece. He wasn’t a fan of big themes, or romance – felt both were too over the heads of children. And I think he may have seen too much of himself in this new Wizard to be comfortable.
But yet again, he may
well have seen this re-imagining as personally redemptive.In one part of the story line, Elphaba makes a stand for the disenfranchised, trying to protect the extermination of the talking animal minority.
Baum wrote an editorial once about the obvious abuses that the US was making against the American Indians during his day. He thought that we had gone so far, in fact, that the only way to be safe from retaliation would be the complete extermination of the Native American race.
It’s a claim he only made once, I think. And I would like to believe a scenario he regretted even contemplating. I would like to think that he would admire Elphaba for her courage and righteousness, and wish to see himself in her shoes (or pointed hat, as the case may be).
I don’t think it is a mistake that WICKED, while sending Oz askew, sets Baum’s world aright.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Flash Dance with Flair
Mandalorians, as you all know, are a war like clan, existing in the Star Wars universe. (I know this because wookiepedia told me so.)
But did you know they are artists at heart, as shown by this video?
Thanks, Jeff, for a much needed laugh.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
But did you know they are artists at heart, as shown by this video?
Thanks, Jeff, for a much needed laugh.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Monday, August 11, 2008
Hmmm, Cotton Candy...
Today's quote is from Mark Brewer's book, WHAT'S YOUR SPIRITUAL QUOTIENT:
"Unfortunately in the Body of Christ, we've created an entire religious industry of spiritual cotton candy. Yet Jesus called us to be the "salt" of the world, not the "sugar" of it."
"Unfortunately in the Body of Christ, we've created an entire religious industry of spiritual cotton candy. Yet Jesus called us to be the "salt" of the world, not the "sugar" of it."
Friday, August 08, 2008
"You Got Chocolate In My Peanut Butter..."
Wowza. I started the week with so much to talk about, but the days got away from me --- filled with even more things to talk about!
We did indeed get into WICKED, a show that I have much to say about. But first-
History has given us a lot of great pairings.
Romeo and Juliet.
Lewis and Clark.
Laurel and Hardy.
Katee and Joshua.
And now, Chicken and Waffles.
You heard me right.
Chicken.
AND waffles.
Between the time of the WICKED lottery and the show itself, Catherine and I went to eat at Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles.
I’ve known about this place since I did Act One in 2000, but never could quite get myself to believe that the combination of poultry and ridged pancakes was worth the bother. (There is typically a line out the door.)
But for an anniversary adventure – why not?
Never will I doubt again – the waffles are amazing!
Can’t be described, won’t even try. You have to experience it to understand.
When you go, you can try wrapping a bite of chicken in the waffle, but really the best experience is just to alternate bites.
So maybe the name should be changed to: Roscoe’s Chicken THEN Waffle. Then Chicken. Then Waffle. Then Chicken…
Just my thoughts,
Sean
We did indeed get into WICKED, a show that I have much to say about. But first-
History has given us a lot of great pairings.
Romeo and Juliet.
Lewis and Clark.
Laurel and Hardy.
Katee and Joshua.
And now, Chicken and Waffles.
You heard me right.
Chicken.
AND waffles.
Between the time of the WICKED lottery and the show itself, Catherine and I went to eat at Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles.
I’ve known about this place since I did Act One in 2000, but never could quite get myself to believe that the combination of poultry and ridged pancakes was worth the bother. (There is typically a line out the door.)
But for an anniversary adventure – why not?
Never will I doubt again – the waffles are amazing!
Can’t be described, won’t even try. You have to experience it to understand.
When you go, you can try wrapping a bite of chicken in the waffle, but really the best experience is just to alternate bites.
So maybe the name should be changed to: Roscoe’s Chicken THEN Waffle. Then Chicken. Then Waffle. Then Chicken…
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
To Date, Perchance to Dream
Sunday marked twelve years of marriage for Catherine and me. (Yes, thank you, I am a lucky sog.)
In celebration, we spent the day Saturday seeing theatre, starting with HAMLET. A very romantic choice, the story of a guy who publicly berates his girl, kills her father, and drives her to an early grave.
Okay, so Valentine's material this isn't, but still a goodly anniversary present. What better way to make one's marriage look good?
"Hey, honey, remember how I never stabbed your brother with a poisoned sword? That's how much I still love you!"
After Hamlet, we wandered down Hollywood Blvd, heading for the Pantages Theatre in hopes of scoring some cheap seats in the WICKED lottery.
We had time to kill before the lottery, so we ambled, taking time to read names on the stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Did you know that the Apollo astronauts have a square dedicated to them? For television, naturally.
After killing time with a chocolate croissant (mine) and a berry smoothie (hers), we joined the lottery line.
Here’s how it works: everyone in line puts their name into a large drum. Then thirteen names are drawn, each name being allowed to buy up to two $25 front row tickets.
Winning the right to buy – sounds like a scam, no? Well, yes and no. The seats at full price are closer to $200 each.
I love my wife, but $400 for two hours of entertainment is a bit on the high side, especially for a couple that considers splurging to mean renting a DVD on a day other than “$1 Wednesday.”
There were about two hundred people in line. I was feeling good about this.
So good in fact, I told Cath to have the money ready for when they chose my name.
How cool would it have been to have our names called right after saying that? We will never know; we weren’t the first called.
Or the second. Or the third.
So how do you spend the rest of your anniversary day out after disappointing your wife by not getting WICKED tickets?
Or the fourth.
Maybe I plop down the $200, let her see it while I wait at the coffee shop next door…
Or fifth.
Okay, I watch Act One, tell her about it, then she watches Act Two…
Or sixth. Or seventh.
Was there anything on TIVO that we haven’t watched yet?
Or eighth.
Peace settles in. After twelve years, I know that our having a good time isn’t dependent on winning a lottery.
We will play the night by ear, and we will have a great time no matter what. Settled.
And then the guy announces…
TO BE CONTINUED.
Next up: I think I will try defying gravity.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
In celebration, we spent the day Saturday seeing theatre, starting with HAMLET. A very romantic choice, the story of a guy who publicly berates his girl, kills her father, and drives her to an early grave.
Okay, so Valentine's material this isn't, but still a goodly anniversary present. What better way to make one's marriage look good?
"Hey, honey, remember how I never stabbed your brother with a poisoned sword? That's how much I still love you!"
After Hamlet, we wandered down Hollywood Blvd, heading for the Pantages Theatre in hopes of scoring some cheap seats in the WICKED lottery.
We had time to kill before the lottery, so we ambled, taking time to read names on the stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Did you know that the Apollo astronauts have a square dedicated to them? For television, naturally.
After killing time with a chocolate croissant (mine) and a berry smoothie (hers), we joined the lottery line.
Here’s how it works: everyone in line puts their name into a large drum. Then thirteen names are drawn, each name being allowed to buy up to two $25 front row tickets.
Winning the right to buy – sounds like a scam, no? Well, yes and no. The seats at full price are closer to $200 each.
I love my wife, but $400 for two hours of entertainment is a bit on the high side, especially for a couple that considers splurging to mean renting a DVD on a day other than “$1 Wednesday.”
There were about two hundred people in line. I was feeling good about this.
So good in fact, I told Cath to have the money ready for when they chose my name.
How cool would it have been to have our names called right after saying that? We will never know; we weren’t the first called.
Or the second. Or the third.
So how do you spend the rest of your anniversary day out after disappointing your wife by not getting WICKED tickets?
Or the fourth.
Maybe I plop down the $200, let her see it while I wait at the coffee shop next door…
Or fifth.
Okay, I watch Act One, tell her about it, then she watches Act Two…
Or sixth. Or seventh.
Was there anything on TIVO that we haven’t watched yet?
Or eighth.
Peace settles in. After twelve years, I know that our having a good time isn’t dependent on winning a lottery.
We will play the night by ear, and we will have a great time no matter what. Settled.
And then the guy announces…
TO BE CONTINUED.
Next up: I think I will try defying gravity.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Friday, August 01, 2008
Dark Justice
David Goulet says:
“My only beef with DK is that it could be interpreted as an endorsement of redemptive violence.
“I can see where some folks have compared the Bush administration's vision of America to Batman. Someone has to do the dirty work, so America shoulders this cross and takes out the bad guys -- alone. The references to terrorism/insurgency are not subtle in the film.
“In DK we never are presented with the Christ option, which is transformation of evil (our enemy). Batman doesn't transform bad guys, he brings them to justice. He's still an Old Testament character, despite his noble desire not to exactly repay an eye for eye.
“Now I realize igniting inner repentance isn't the usual m.o. for comic book characters. But if we're going to discuss the Christian parallels in DK, which there are, we must also discuss the elements that are missing.
“Funny, I liked Iron Man more than DK. Maybe because it had a little more hope in it.”
David,
Well said. As I stated in the review, I’m not sure I agree with the “third way” decided upon in THE DARK KNIGHT.
First let me address IRON MAN vs. DK: interesting to note that they both kinda deal with the darkness in a similar fashion – fighting violence with violence all the while hoping for a better way.
IM is more of the moderate’s vision – blatantly saying “warmongering is bad” while at the same time affirming that sometimes butt need kicking. DK goes much darker with its villain, and thus ends in a much darker place.
But redemption? Hmmm…
So what does the Christ-like action movie look like?
Don’t know. But here’s a start:
The prophet Micah tells us (6:8): “He has shown you, O Man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? But to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”
Simple. Yet not easy.
And movies like DK and IM got a third of it right -- do justice.
And it is good that we have movies that at least get that right. I applaud any movie that understands that the answer is more complicated than merely “do justice” – both DK and IM get that.
But walking in the Way is not an “or” philosophy; it is an “and” philosophy.
So where are the movies that “do justice” AND “love mercy?”
Not many, but there are a few.
In drama: DEAD MAN WALKING.
There is a striking scene where Sean Penn’s character – a murderer/rapist -- claims a conversion to Christ, then asks “So, when do I get out of here?”
Sarandon’s Sister Helen is shocked by that question – shocked that he has so little understanding of Jesus’ faith. One that has mercy AND justice. It wouldn’t occur to her that he would not pay for his crimes.
On the action side, I offer you THE X-MEN.
Magneto must pay for his crimes; he must be brought to justice.
But Xavier will never give up on Magneto, will continue to visit him in prison (hmmm, visiting one in prison, where have I heard that spoken of before?).
Archenemies? Sure. But that won’t stop Xavier from loving Magneto.
Note: A key factor that allows both Sister Helen and Professor X to behave in such a counter-cultural way is their humility. Hmmm…
Doing justice AND loving mercy AND walking humbly – very, very tricky stuff.
Figure out how to do all of that at once, and you’ve got yourself a third way.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS In his defense, Batman never gives up on Harvey Dent – in the movie and throughout the comics (through and including THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS).
And I still am a huge fan of DK.
Maybe next week I'll get all political and talk about how DK does NOT reflect the Bush administration...
“My only beef with DK is that it could be interpreted as an endorsement of redemptive violence.
“I can see where some folks have compared the Bush administration's vision of America to Batman. Someone has to do the dirty work, so America shoulders this cross and takes out the bad guys -- alone. The references to terrorism/insurgency are not subtle in the film.
“In DK we never are presented with the Christ option, which is transformation of evil (our enemy). Batman doesn't transform bad guys, he brings them to justice. He's still an Old Testament character, despite his noble desire not to exactly repay an eye for eye.
“Now I realize igniting inner repentance isn't the usual m.o. for comic book characters. But if we're going to discuss the Christian parallels in DK, which there are, we must also discuss the elements that are missing.
“Funny, I liked Iron Man more than DK. Maybe because it had a little more hope in it.”
David,
Well said. As I stated in the review, I’m not sure I agree with the “third way” decided upon in THE DARK KNIGHT.
First let me address IRON MAN vs. DK: interesting to note that they both kinda deal with the darkness in a similar fashion – fighting violence with violence all the while hoping for a better way.
IM is more of the moderate’s vision – blatantly saying “warmongering is bad” while at the same time affirming that sometimes butt need kicking. DK goes much darker with its villain, and thus ends in a much darker place.
But redemption? Hmmm…
So what does the Christ-like action movie look like?
Don’t know. But here’s a start:
The prophet Micah tells us (6:8): “He has shown you, O Man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? But to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”
Simple. Yet not easy.
And movies like DK and IM got a third of it right -- do justice.
And it is good that we have movies that at least get that right. I applaud any movie that understands that the answer is more complicated than merely “do justice” – both DK and IM get that.
But walking in the Way is not an “or” philosophy; it is an “and” philosophy.
So where are the movies that “do justice” AND “love mercy?”
Not many, but there are a few.
In drama: DEAD MAN WALKING.
There is a striking scene where Sean Penn’s character – a murderer/rapist -- claims a conversion to Christ, then asks “So, when do I get out of here?”
Sarandon’s Sister Helen is shocked by that question – shocked that he has so little understanding of Jesus’ faith. One that has mercy AND justice. It wouldn’t occur to her that he would not pay for his crimes.
On the action side, I offer you THE X-MEN.
Magneto must pay for his crimes; he must be brought to justice.
But Xavier will never give up on Magneto, will continue to visit him in prison (hmmm, visiting one in prison, where have I heard that spoken of before?).
Archenemies? Sure. But that won’t stop Xavier from loving Magneto.
Note: A key factor that allows both Sister Helen and Professor X to behave in such a counter-cultural way is their humility. Hmmm…
Doing justice AND loving mercy AND walking humbly – very, very tricky stuff.
Figure out how to do all of that at once, and you’ve got yourself a third way.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS In his defense, Batman never gives up on Harvey Dent – in the movie and throughout the comics (through and including THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS).
And I still am a huge fan of DK.
Maybe next week I'll get all political and talk about how DK does NOT reflect the Bush administration...
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In N Out
Update: Before the screening, there will be an In N Out Burger truck parked outside the church, so you can get food on the hill. Makes me want to be there...
Part Two of Con Report
More stuff I learned at Comic Con:
-The women of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA like guns. A lot.
-Kevin Smith has a pot
ty mouth.
-James Callis has an interesting take on what drives Gaius Baltar – at first talking about guilt, but then amending himself. Shame, not guilt. Interesting that he made the distinction between the two…
-Tricia Helfer is a class act.
-CHUCK is a fun show in part because all the people on it are fun. And having fun.
-Adam Baldwin is a rock star at Comic Con. And why not? Jayne starring on another geek show – who could ask for more.
(Adam Baldwin also stays in character a lot – but broke character for a great mo
ment of genuine humility, as he told the crowd how thankful he was that his CHUCK cast mates could now feel the FIREFLY love he was able to get at earlier Cons.)
-There are a lot of Aussies out there tossing around American accents. (And apparently everybody from Australia is stunningly attractive.)
-The Warner Bros booth was popular. Just saying. Tried to get to it twice, couldn’t get in. And those Warner oversized bags? Not at all practical, yet the chic prize of the Con.
-Non humans have to use different bathrooms than humans.
-Staring at an Elektra costume in admiration for the attention to detail can often be misconstrued as staring at a babe wearing skimpy clothing. Just saying.
-Bryan hasn’t lost his whacky edge.
-Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel Jr. look really impressive walking around together the first time one sees them. By the third or fourth time, they start looking a bit fey.
-Coming to the Con without a camera is a dumb idea. You miss documenting things like the six and eight year old Darth Vaders in full regalia, one with a Wookie backpack, and the other with a Spiderman backpack
draped over their capes.
-The funniest idea at the Con: approach everyone in costume (no matter the costume) and ask: “Hey, are you supposed to be Secret Squirrel?” (Thanks, Moira.)
-Cows penned in the middle of a San Diego street is just weird, no matter what your television show subject matter.
-The Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd is a fun, fun show.
-Every time I go to Comic Con I win a raffle in a session. Nifty.
-SUPERNATURAL is now more popular than SMALLVILLE.
-Even if you tell an ape that you don’t think he’s dirty or damned, he may still beat you with his baton for speaking to him like an equal. (Discovered this by watching Cory get beaten by a pair of apes. While I stood silently by. As a darn, dirty human should.)
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS. For more Comic Con photos (since I didn’t take a camera) check out breadwig.com.
-The women of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA like guns. A lot.
-Kevin Smith has a pot
ty mouth.-James Callis has an interesting take on what drives Gaius Baltar – at first talking about guilt, but then amending himself. Shame, not guilt. Interesting that he made the distinction between the two…
-Tricia Helfer is a class act.
-CHUCK is a fun show in part because all the people on it are fun. And having fun.
-Adam Baldwin is a rock star at Comic Con. And why not? Jayne starring on another geek show – who could ask for more.
(Adam Baldwin also stays in character a lot – but broke character for a great mo
ment of genuine humility, as he told the crowd how thankful he was that his CHUCK cast mates could now feel the FIREFLY love he was able to get at earlier Cons.)-There are a lot of Aussies out there tossing around American accents. (And apparently everybody from Australia is stunningly attractive.)
-The Warner Bros booth was popular. Just saying. Tried to get to it twice, couldn’t get in. And those Warner oversized bags? Not at all practical, yet the chic prize of the Con.
-Non humans have to use different bathrooms than humans.
-Staring at an Elektra costume in admiration for the attention to detail can often be misconstrued as staring at a babe wearing skimpy clothing. Just saying.
-Bryan hasn’t lost his whacky edge.
-Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel Jr. look really impressive walking around together the first time one sees them. By the third or fourth time, they start looking a bit fey.
-Coming to the Con without a camera is a dumb idea. You miss documenting things like the six and eight year old Darth Vaders in full regalia, one with a Wookie backpack, and the other with a Spiderman backpack
draped over their capes.-The funniest idea at the Con: approach everyone in costume (no matter the costume) and ask: “Hey, are you supposed to be Secret Squirrel?” (Thanks, Moira.)
-Cows penned in the middle of a San Diego street is just weird, no matter what your television show subject matter.
-The Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd is a fun, fun show.
-Every time I go to Comic Con I win a raffle in a session. Nifty.
-SUPERNATURAL is now more popular than SMALLVILLE.
-Even if you tell an ape that you don’t think he’s dirty or damned, he may still beat you with his baton for speaking to him like an equal. (Discovered this by watching Cory get beaten by a pair of apes. While I stood silently by. As a darn, dirty human should.)
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS. For more Comic Con photos (since I didn’t take a camera) check out breadwig.com.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Star Theology
We interrupt Comic-Con news for this important announcement:
This Sunday, BEACON (a entertainment industry group from my church) is sponsoring a screening of STAR WARS.
After the screening, I am on a panel with Bob Lee, Cory Edwards and others to discuss the Theology of Star Wars.
Free event, if any are interested.
I am also looking for pointers, hint hint.
I of course will be prepared to talk about Mr. Lucas’ desire for the film (I have the Moyers interview), Campbell’s take on myth, and my own spin on the Judeo-Christian ideals that come out in the story.
And I have the Dick Staub book on order.
Here’s the info on the screening and discussion:
Sunday Film Nig
ht: The Theology of Star Wars [ August 3 ]7:30 p.m. Discipleship Center :: Use the Force (What force? Good question!) and join us for the iconic, culture shaping film STAR WARS. If your kids haven't seen it, what better place for more fun than church? Then join leaders of B.A.D.D. & Beacon as we discuss its theological perspectives. Event is free.
Bel Air Church is located at:16221 Mulholland DriveLos Angeles, CA 90049.
Map and directions here.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
This Sunday, BEACON (a entertainment industry group from my church) is sponsoring a screening of STAR WARS.
After the screening, I am on a panel with Bob Lee, Cory Edwards and others to discuss the Theology of Star Wars.
Free event, if any are interested.
I am also looking for pointers, hint hint.
I of course will be prepared to talk about Mr. Lucas’ desire for the film (I have the Moyers interview), Campbell’s take on myth, and my own spin on the Judeo-Christian ideals that come out in the story.
And I have the Dick Staub book on order.
Here’s the info on the screening and discussion:
Sunday Film Nig
ht: The Theology of Star Wars [ August 3 ]7:30 p.m. Discipleship Center :: Use the Force (What force? Good question!) and join us for the iconic, culture shaping film STAR WARS. If your kids haven't seen it, what better place for more fun than church? Then join leaders of B.A.D.D. & Beacon as we discuss its theological perspectives. Event is free.Bel Air Church is located at:16221 Mulholland DriveLos Angeles, CA 90049.
Map and directions here.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Pro at the Con
My Comic-con trip was brief – a day and a half. Cath and I went down late Friday with friends Mark & Nicole, staying with Nicole’s uncle fifteen minutes away from the convention center.
Here are a few things I learned at the Con, in chronological order:
-Being sick in a room full of one hundred thousand people is a bummer. But less of a bummer than being the Boba Fett I sneezed on.
-It’s good to have Cory Edwards on your panel, as he is entertaining AND has something to say. (For Cory’s take on the Con, start reading here.)
-Wiccans wearing low-cut bustiers can be quite amusing – especially early in the morning before their caffeine settles in.
-If it takes you longer to walk from the door to the end of the line of people waiting to enter a session then the length of the session itself, you are not getting in.
-Most free stuff is over priced.
Here are a few things I learned at the Con, in chronological order:
-Being sick in a room full of one hundred thousand people is a bummer. But less of a bummer than being the Boba Fett I sneezed on.
-It’s good to have Cory Edwards on your panel, as he is entertaining AND has something to say. (For Cory’s take on the Con, start reading here.)
-Wiccans wearing low-cut bustiers can be quite amusing – especially early in the morning before their caffeine settles in.
-If it takes you longer to walk from the door to the end of the line of people waiting to enter a session then the length of the session itself, you are not getting in.
-Most free stuff is over priced.
-Not as many comic geeks are hot for Dean Koontz as are hot for Summer Glau.
-I am not allowed to be the show runner of a television program if the lead actress flirts with me as much as the lead of DOLLHOUSE flirted with Joss Whedon. Catherine’s rules, not mine.
(Sidenote: in her defense, Eliza wasn’t flirting with Joss, she was flirting with every man in the room. It ain’t no accident that girl has her own show…)
-Joss’ new show plays on one of his favorite themes: identity. Which is universal, hitting one of the three common questions that Howard Stein says links religion and art: “Who are we?”
(Howard’s other two: “Where did we come from?” and “Where are we going to?”)
-If Tahmoh Penikett (formerly of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA) is whispering in Eliza Dushku’s ear an explanation of why the guy in line asked him if Eliza’s spine glows, no one (and I mean not even Joss’ mother) is listening to Joss talk about the depth of character arc he has planned for the coming year.
-Camping out in a room from session to session is completely unfair if you are outside a room full of campers; completely reasonable if you are inside the room camping.
-Wearing a hair band with cat ears may qualify as a costume at your office’s Halloween party, but is just sad at the Con.
More to come…
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS Photo of Catherine & company by Shon Little. Photo of Captain America by Bryan at Breadwig.com. More photos here.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Dark Knight of the Soul
I made it to Comic-Con, the largest and proudest collection of nerds and geeks in the Northern Hemisphere.
Before talking about the Con itself, a few words on that little heard of comic book movie, THE DARK KNIGHT.
So much has already been said, I don’t have a lot to contribute. Which, of course, isn’t going to stop me.
Why so successful? Because it is a movie that succeeds in its genre, but also exceeds its genre.
Y’all know that I like movies that are about more than their type – thrillers that dig deeper than just scary; romances that speak beyond finding “the one;” action movies where the action means something.
So it is true with
THE DARK KNIGHT.
Without changing topics (but seeming to), let me tell you one of the things I like about Jesus.
The notion of WWJD is more complex than the movement ever allowed, because the choice of what He “would do” was usually devoted to an either/or.
Would Jesus give this money to the homeless guy, or would he spend it on himself?
Would Jesus let this driver in, or would he block him out?
Would Jesus order the chicken or the steak?
The thing is, virtually every time that Jesus was offered a choice between two things, he always chose a third one that wasn’t on the menu. (Jesus ordered the fish, by the way.)
This, of course, drove those around the guy crazy.
Stone the woman or let her go? Let the sinless guy stone her.
Honor the Sabbath or heal the guy? Honor the Sabbath by healing the guy.
Fight or flight? Neither.
Attack or defend? Love.
Being so attuned to the notion of “the third way,” (and feeling strongly that Christians will not make a difference in this culture until they start finding “third ways” in their stories), I was sharply drawn by the trios in THE DARK KNIGHT.
(Now I am not equating Batman to Jesus – and I’m not even sure if I think that BW and friends came up with the best “third way” – I’m just noting the process…)
You see, Nolans/Goyer are being tricky, pretending that the world of Gotham offers this or that – ala Two-Face and his coin. But they really are seeking the third way – represented in a myriad of triangular choices.
The love triangle – Rachel, Bruce, Harvey.
The justice triangle – Gordon, Harvey, Batman.
The injustice triangle – Joker, mob or money launderer.
Even Batman’s personal counselors come in threes – Wayne (the physical), Alfred (the emotional), Lucius (the moral).
The Joker’s one fatal mistake is in thinking that there is only this or that – anarchy or totalitarianism; egocentricity or loss of self; good or evil. He believes that once he proves that Gotham is not good (“there is none righteous, no not one!”), then he has proven that the citizens are irredeemably evil.
(Semi-spoiler alert!)
Which is why it is critical to watch the already-proven-evil convict on the ferry in order to understand what makes this movie great.
(And please notice where the convict goes immediately upon taking action.)
There is a classic Batman comic book, where he defeats Two-Face by tricking out the villian’s coin so that it lands neither on the scarred nor the good side – but rather lands always on its edge.
Two-Face can’t handle the notion that there is a third way, and thus is immobilized in indecision.
In the movie, the Joker falls victim to the same flawed belief system.
He thinks Gotham can have either a dark chaos (himself) or a white knight (Harvey Dent).
Not counting on the third choice.
A Dark Knight.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Before talking about the Con itself, a few words on that little heard of comic book movie, THE DARK KNIGHT.
So much has already been said, I don’t have a lot to contribute. Which, of course, isn’t going to stop me.
Why so successful? Because it is a movie that succeeds in its genre, but also exceeds its genre.
Y’all know that I like movies that are about more than their type – thrillers that dig deeper than just scary; romances that speak beyond finding “the one;” action movies where the action means something.
So it is true with
THE DARK KNIGHT.Without changing topics (but seeming to), let me tell you one of the things I like about Jesus.
The notion of WWJD is more complex than the movement ever allowed, because the choice of what He “would do” was usually devoted to an either/or.
Would Jesus give this money to the homeless guy, or would he spend it on himself?
Would Jesus let this driver in, or would he block him out?
Would Jesus order the chicken or the steak?
The thing is, virtually every time that Jesus was offered a choice between two things, he always chose a third one that wasn’t on the menu. (Jesus ordered the fish, by the way.)
This, of course, drove those around the guy crazy.
Stone the woman or let her go? Let the sinless guy stone her.
Honor the Sabbath or heal the guy? Honor the Sabbath by healing the guy.
Fight or flight? Neither.
Attack or defend? Love.
Being so attuned to the notion of “the third way,” (and feeling strongly that Christians will not make a difference in this culture until they start finding “third ways” in their stories), I was sharply drawn by the trios in THE DARK KNIGHT.
(Now I am not equating Batman to Jesus – and I’m not even sure if I think that BW and friends came up with the best “third way” – I’m just noting the process…)
You see, Nolans/Goyer are being tricky, pretending that the world of Gotham offers this or that – ala Two-Face and his coin. But they really are seeking the third way – represented in a myriad of triangular choices.
The love triangle – Rachel, Bruce, Harvey.
The justice triangle – Gordon, Harvey, Batman.
The injustice triangle – Joker, mob or money launderer.
Even Batman’s personal counselors come in threes – Wayne (the physical), Alfred (the emotional), Lucius (the moral).
The Joker’s one fatal mistake is in thinking that there is only this or that – anarchy or totalitarianism; egocentricity or loss of self; good or evil. He believes that once he proves that Gotham is not good (“there is none righteous, no not one!”), then he has proven that the citizens are irredeemably evil.
(Semi-spoiler alert!)
Which is why it is critical to watch the already-proven-evil convict on the ferry in order to understand what makes this movie great.
(And please notice where the convict goes immediately upon taking action.)
There is a classic Batman comic book, where he defeats Two-Face by tricking out the villian’s coin so that it lands neither on the scarred nor the good side – but rather lands always on its edge.
Two-Face can’t handle the notion that there is a third way, and thus is immobilized in indecision.
In the movie, the Joker falls victim to the same flawed belief system.
He thinks Gotham can have either a dark chaos (himself) or a white knight (Harvey Dent).
Not counting on the third choice.
A Dark Knight.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Recovery and Fragglehood
Still recovering from a trip that included bears and basketball.
Recovering more from viewing Dark Knight (did anyone happen to notice that it broke all box office records this weekend? Just wondering -- don't know if it's been covered anywhere).
As I continue to recover (and get my head around attending ComiCon this weekend...), here's a distraction for you:
Henson company interviews Fraggle writer/director Cory Edwards.
Check it out.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Vacation is good!
Sorry for the lack of blogging - but Sean & I were in the Catskills celebrating a Gaffney family reunion and the 
50th anniversary of his folks.
Here are a few memories of our relaxing time.
Football on the front lawn!
A gorgeous house (plus garage/coverted "carriage house") that fit all 41 of us.
The view of the house from the lake:
And my relaxed husband rowing our broken paddle boat to the other side of the lake:
Praise God for family! And for days away from computers and cell phones. :)
And for the simple pleasures of being pulled around in a red radio flyer!
Just my relaxed thoughts!
--catherine
50th anniversary of his folks.Here are a few memories of our relaxing time.
Football on the front lawn!
A gorgeous house (plus garage/coverted "carriage house") that fit all 41 of us.
The view of the house from the lake:
And my relaxed husband rowing our broken paddle boat to the other side of the lake:
Praise God for family! And for days away from computers and cell phones. :)
And for the simple pleasures of being pulled around in a red radio flyer!Just my relaxed thoughts!
--catherine
Friday, July 11, 2008
Iron-E
I may be away from a computer for a bit, and didn’t want my last posts to be my week-long legacy, so instead I’m going to comment on two of my favorite movies of this summer.
IRON MAN and WALL-E.
One of the things that I think made both movies appealing to such large audiences is their moderate politics.
Wall-E: Machines and comfort can be good things, but moderation people – please!
Iron Man: Warmongering is evil; but sometimes you do have to kick some butt.
See what I mean?
That got me to thinking of other ways that the two movies are similar.
Wall-E upgrades himself by using cast off machine parts.
Iron Man upgrades himself by using cast off weapons parts.
Wall-E is a machine with a human heart.
Iron Man is a human with a machine heart.
Wall-E uses a fire extinguisher for great momentum.
Iron Man uses a fire extinguisher for great comic effect.
Wall-E’s love interest was designed by Apple.
Iron Man’s love interest has a daughter named Apple.
Wall-E’s best friend is a hard to crush, slimy vermin.
Iron Man’s business partner is hard to crush, slimy vermin.
Wall-E lives in a world of trash.
Iron Man lives in Los Angeles.
Wall-E fights to save a small, green plant.
Iron Man fights and destroys a small power plant.
What’s on your list?
Just my thoughts,
Sean
IRON MAN and WALL-E.
One of the things that I think made both movies appealing to such large audiences is their moderate politics.
Wall-E: Machines and comfort can be good things, but moderation people – please!
Iron Man: Warmongering is evil; but sometimes you do have to kick some butt.
See what I mean?
That got me to thinking of other ways that the two movies are similar.
Wall-E upgrades himself by using cast off machine parts.
Iron Man upgrades himself by using cast off weapons parts.
Wall-E is a machine with a human heart.
Iron Man is a human with a machine heart.
Wall-E uses a fire extinguisher for great momentum.
Iron Man uses a fire extinguisher for great comic effect.
Wall-E’s love interest was designed by Apple.
Iron Man’s love interest has a daughter named Apple.
Wall-E’s best friend is a hard to crush, slimy vermin.
Iron Man’s business partner is hard to crush, slimy vermin.
Wall-E lives in a world of trash.
Iron Man lives in Los Angeles.
Wall-E fights to save a small, green plant.
Iron Man fights and destroys a small power plant.
What’s on your list?
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Religion AND Politics, Woohoo Part Two!
Continued from previous post:
Regarding Obama’s keynote address at the “Call to Renewal” conference:
So what would a professed evangelical like James Dobson take umbrage to in this?
The obvious answer should be: naturally, while disagreeing with issues unrelated to the speech (such as Obama’s stand on abortion), Dobson agrees with the content of this particular speech – especially the call to bring faith into the discussion of public policy.
Of course, that isn’t the answer – there is nothing in the speech that Dobson agrees with. And why is that?
Because Dobson does not like it that someone who disagrees with him on abortion gave this speech.
(Dobson’s words can be found here.)
Dobson claims that Obama is “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit ... his own confused theology.”
Remember, the theology that Dobson is attacking isn’t any of Obama’s liberal stands.
The speech that is being used to attack Obama comes to these theological conclusions:
-faith matters;
-personal faith needs to be part of public political life;
-people should be reading their Bibles more;
-and (the one that seems to upset Dobson the most) – doing all of the above should be treated in a serious manner with an understanding of how complex it is to live under God’s will.
In order to make his arguments (and here is where I am personally disappointed in Focus on the Family), Dobson and his guests distort and quite blatantly lie about what Obama was saying.
I have to confess, it was very frustrating and maddening for me to listen to Dobson’s program, as point by point they claim that Obama said the opposite of what Obama really said.
Obama points out how critical and strong the role of faith is in America.
(“…we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives…” and “…we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people.”)
Dobson, clipping that quote, tells us that Obama started out doing the opposite -- diminishing the role of faith in America.
Then, Dobson takes offense because he claims that Obama equates Dobson with left wing Al Sharpton. Dobson is naturally hurt, because he is the polar opposite to Al Sharpton.
Which is exactly what Obama says in his speech. He doesn’t equate them, he uses the two of them as examples of polar opposites on the Christian spectrum.
Throughout his talk, over and over again, Dobson takes Obama’s words, rephrases them to mean the opposite of what the senator clearly intended, and then points out why the Dobson-respeak isn’t good theology.
Also on his website, Dobson has a “special message” where he responds to those claiming that he is attacking Obama’s personal faith – Dobson declares vehemently that he has not done that, but has only attacked Obama’s statements about the Bible and the constitution.
He specifically takes Obama’s words, “But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”
Dobson and his guest both aver that this is a lie, that Obama could never have possibly given his life to Jesus, because Obama’s political views do not match what Dobson thinks that they should.
In other words, Dobson attacks Obama’s personal faith, under the pretext of explaining that he of course would never attack Obama’s personal faith.
In fact the “special message” does not address in any way Obama’s statements about the Bible and the constitution – it only attack’s Obama’s personal faith.
By the way, in ultimate irony, Dobson admits that he doesn’t know when and where Obama made those comments about his personal faith.
It was in the Obama’s keynote address at the “Call to Renewal” conference – the very one that Dobson attacked that lead to this very post.
Apparently Dobson didn’t feel a need to actually listen to or read Obama’s speech to be qualified to condemn the content.
Which also explains why his paraphrases of Obama’s speech do not align in any way with what the Senator actually said.
Dobson’s actions, in effect, say this: it is okay to use lies as a weapon here, since Obama isn’t pro-life.
Which goes to where I started:
I guess I’m just not an “ends justifies the means” guy.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Regarding Obama’s keynote address at the “Call to Renewal” conference:
So what would a professed evangelical like James Dobson take umbrage to in this?
The obvious answer should be: naturally, while disagreeing with issues unrelated to the speech (such as Obama’s stand on abortion), Dobson agrees with the content of this particular speech – especially the call to bring faith into the discussion of public policy.
Of course, that isn’t the answer – there is nothing in the speech that Dobson agrees with. And why is that?
Because Dobson does not like it that someone who disagrees with him on abortion gave this speech.
(Dobson’s words can be found here.)
Dobson claims that Obama is “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit ... his own confused theology.”
Remember, the theology that Dobson is attacking isn’t any of Obama’s liberal stands.
The speech that is being used to attack Obama comes to these theological conclusions:
-faith matters;
-personal faith needs to be part of public political life;
-people should be reading their Bibles more;
-and (the one that seems to upset Dobson the most) – doing all of the above should be treated in a serious manner with an understanding of how complex it is to live under God’s will.
In order to make his arguments (and here is where I am personally disappointed in Focus on the Family), Dobson and his guests distort and quite blatantly lie about what Obama was saying.
I have to confess, it was very frustrating and maddening for me to listen to Dobson’s program, as point by point they claim that Obama said the opposite of what Obama really said.
Obama points out how critical and strong the role of faith is in America.
(“…we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives…” and “…we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people.”)
Dobson, clipping that quote, tells us that Obama started out doing the opposite -- diminishing the role of faith in America.
Then, Dobson takes offense because he claims that Obama equates Dobson with left wing Al Sharpton. Dobson is naturally hurt, because he is the polar opposite to Al Sharpton.
Which is exactly what Obama says in his speech. He doesn’t equate them, he uses the two of them as examples of polar opposites on the Christian spectrum.
Throughout his talk, over and over again, Dobson takes Obama’s words, rephrases them to mean the opposite of what the senator clearly intended, and then points out why the Dobson-respeak isn’t good theology.
Also on his website, Dobson has a “special message” where he responds to those claiming that he is attacking Obama’s personal faith – Dobson declares vehemently that he has not done that, but has only attacked Obama’s statements about the Bible and the constitution.
He specifically takes Obama’s words, “But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”
Dobson and his guest both aver that this is a lie, that Obama could never have possibly given his life to Jesus, because Obama’s political views do not match what Dobson thinks that they should.
In other words, Dobson attacks Obama’s personal faith, under the pretext of explaining that he of course would never attack Obama’s personal faith.
In fact the “special message” does not address in any way Obama’s statements about the Bible and the constitution – it only attack’s Obama’s personal faith.
By the way, in ultimate irony, Dobson admits that he doesn’t know when and where Obama made those comments about his personal faith.
It was in the Obama’s keynote address at the “Call to Renewal” conference – the very one that Dobson attacked that lead to this very post.
Apparently Dobson didn’t feel a need to actually listen to or read Obama’s speech to be qualified to condemn the content.
Which also explains why his paraphrases of Obama’s speech do not align in any way with what the Senator actually said.
Dobson’s actions, in effect, say this: it is okay to use lies as a weapon here, since Obama isn’t pro-life.
Which goes to where I started:
I guess I’m just not an “ends justifies the means” guy.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Religion AND Politics, Woohoo!
For an excellent take on what I am about to comment on, read this article by conservative evangelical, Peter Wehner.
Okay, I’m gonna get a little political here.
I have found that as I age (mature, perhaps?), I start admiring candidates/politicians less for what they say their policies are, and more for the way that they think – even if the conclusion they come to is disparate from my own.
And on the flip side, I find myself disliking those that come to their conclusions in a questionable way, even if I agree with the results.
For example, I respect a leader who listens to all arguments, opposing and supporting; weighs those arguments and then comes to a decision. Even if I disagree with that decision.
And I have no patience with a leader who makes their own decision, is willing to only hear supporting opinions and punishes those that attempt provide an alternate point of view. Even if I agree with the initial decision.
I guess I’m just not an “ends justifies the means” guy.
Which brings me to the attack from James Dobson of Focus on the Family on Barack Obama’s view of faith and politics; specifically on a speech Obama gave on the topic a few years back.
Go and read the speech. Some aspects of it are stunning.
Including this little evangelical ditty, in talking about the majority of Americans seeking a spiritual life:
“This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.”
Obama goes on to give his testimony, a rather blatant one for a public politician.
(“You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.”)
The core of his speech creates an argument for the necessity of allowing (nay, encouraging) our personal religion/faith to influence our public discourse.
In his words:
“But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square… So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
And then he lays argument and advice on how to go about doing so in a country that firmly supports freedom of religion – the tricky, tricky mix of church and state together. (“…a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.”)
Part of that process, by the way, seems straight out of Sunday School:
“So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.”
Personally, I don’t agree necessarily with where Obama lands on some of that mix, but I strongly appreciate his desire to get there by taking seriously personal faith and ethics.
And his willingness to be open to hearing arguments, and to repent (my word, not his, but dang he comes close to that language!) when shown to be in error.
So what would a professed evangelical like James Dobson take umbrage to in this?
The answer should be obvious. But, unfortunately, it’s not…
To be continued.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Okay, I’m gonna get a little political here.
I have found that as I age (mature, perhaps?), I start admiring candidates/politicians less for what they say their policies are, and more for the way that they think – even if the conclusion they come to is disparate from my own.
And on the flip side, I find myself disliking those that come to their conclusions in a questionable way, even if I agree with the results.
For example, I respect a leader who listens to all arguments, opposing and supporting; weighs those arguments and then comes to a decision. Even if I disagree with that decision.
And I have no patience with a leader who makes their own decision, is willing to only hear supporting opinions and punishes those that attempt provide an alternate point of view. Even if I agree with the initial decision.
I guess I’m just not an “ends justifies the means” guy.
Which brings me to the attack from James Dobson of Focus on the Family on Barack Obama’s view of faith and politics; specifically on a speech Obama gave on the topic a few years back.
Go and read the speech. Some aspects of it are stunning.
Including this little evangelical ditty, in talking about the majority of Americans seeking a spiritual life:
“This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.”
Obama goes on to give his testimony, a rather blatant one for a public politician.
(“You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.”)
The core of his speech creates an argument for the necessity of allowing (nay, encouraging) our personal religion/faith to influence our public discourse.
In his words:
“But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square… So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
And then he lays argument and advice on how to go about doing so in a country that firmly supports freedom of religion – the tricky, tricky mix of church and state together. (“…a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all.”)
Part of that process, by the way, seems straight out of Sunday School:
“So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.”
Personally, I don’t agree necessarily with where Obama lands on some of that mix, but I strongly appreciate his desire to get there by taking seriously personal faith and ethics.
And his willingness to be open to hearing arguments, and to repent (my word, not his, but dang he comes close to that language!) when shown to be in error.
So what would a professed evangelical like James Dobson take umbrage to in this?
The answer should be obvious. But, unfortunately, it’s not…
To be continued.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Classics - New and Old
Haven't gotten to the theatre to see WALL-E yet, but still want a taste?
How about watching the marvelous short that precedes the film in theatres: Presto.
(Thanks to Jeff for the link.)
While you're watching that, I'll chat about what a great time Cath, Company and I had watching Bugs Bunny cartoons at the Hollywood Bowl.
First, the surreal nature of watching the Bowl in a movie at the Bowl. When I was a kid, I didn't know the Bowl was a real place -- I assumed it was as fictional as Marvin's space ship.
Makes me wonder about Marvin's space ship.
Second, watching these cartoons on the big screen with a crowd is the way to go. Laughter feeds laughter.
As I sat there, more tickled than I thought, enjoying the show more than expected, I realized that this is the way they were meant to be seen. Back in the day, cartoons were not created for television, but for the movie houses.
Bugs up on the big screen where he belongs.
Fascinatin'.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
How about watching the marvelous short that precedes the film in theatres: Presto.
(Thanks to Jeff for the link.)
While you're watching that, I'll chat about what a great time Cath, Company and I had watching Bugs Bunny cartoons at the Hollywood Bowl.
First, the surreal nature of watching the Bowl in a movie at the Bowl. When I was a kid, I didn't know the Bowl was a real place -- I assumed it was as fictional as Marvin's space ship.
Makes me wonder about Marvin's space ship.
Second, watching these cartoons on the big screen with a crowd is the way to go. Laughter feeds laughter.
As I sat there, more tickled than I thought, enjoying the show more than expected, I realized that this is the way they were meant to be seen. Back in the day, cartoons were not created for television, but for the movie houses.
Bugs up on the big screen where he belongs.
Fascinatin'.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Billy and Bugs
Thanks to Jeff for pointing us toward this Wall Street article.
Billy Collins, the poet laureate that Prairie Home Companion introduced me to, writes about a great influence on his poetry -- the gang from Looney Tunes.
The intellectual in me appreciates his opening gambit, expounding on the notion that asking an artist about his influences elicits less-than-honest answers. Especially the notion -- true in my experience -- that one's influences often come from different angles than one's own field.
Hence a poet laureate speaking of cartoons as an influence.
Cath and I (with a bunch of friends) are attending the Hollywood Bowl on Saturday -- for a live orchestra accompanied screening of several of these Looney Toons classics.
I'm ready to be freaked by being at the Bowl and watching Bugs literally bring down the Bowl on top of a tenor. Pirandello indeed.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Friday, June 27, 2008
Ready To Be Pixilated
Cath and I are seeing WALL-E tonight.
Until then, satisfy yourself with unsatisfyingly brief clips from a satisfying interview with the filmmaker of a satisfy---
Maybe you should just go over to Jeffrey’s blog and read.
Cath suggested one of the questions he asks. Okay, Jeff was probably gonna ask it anyway, but still.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Until then, satisfy yourself with unsatisfyingly brief clips from a satisfying interview with the filmmaker of a satisfy---
Maybe you should just go over to Jeffrey’s blog and read.
Cath suggested one of the questions he asks. Okay, Jeff was probably gonna ask it anyway, but still.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Carmen Sandiego Never Danced So Good
Jason sent this vid link to me. (Pay attention to 2008; the others only at your own whim.)
Matt travels the world.
And he dances.
Badly.
And yet somehow, makes the world feel like, oh I don't know-
Part of the same goofy family.
Thanks for dancing, Matt. There's hope for us yet.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS For after you watched the video:
Two entries on the FAQ's that I enjoyed:
How did you get those kids in Rwanda to dance with you?
I just started dancing. There was no prior discussion or explanation. They thought it looked like a fun thing to be doing and joined in. They also really dug seeing themselves on the camera's playback screen.
Why is the world so screwed up?
Men.
How do we fix it?
Women.
Matt travels the world.
And he dances.
Badly.
And yet somehow, makes the world feel like, oh I don't know-
Part of the same goofy family.
Thanks for dancing, Matt. There's hope for us yet.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
PS For after you watched the video:
Two entries on the FAQ's that I enjoyed:
How did you get those kids in Rwanda to dance with you?
I just started dancing. There was no prior discussion or explanation. They thought it looked like a fun thing to be doing and joined in. They also really dug seeing themselves on the camera's playback screen.
Why is the world so screwed up?
Men.
How do we fix it?
Women.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog
Joss Whedon.
Nathan Fillion.
Neil Patrick Harris.
Singing super villians.
Me in geek heaven.
Ahhhhhhhhh.......
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Good Ol' Charlie Brown
Special thanks to my book club, and more to the point Susan Kelly for putting me on to today’s topic.
To this day, I identify with Charlie Brown.
Growing up, I thought I was Charlie Brown. I even had a crush on a little red-haired girl.
And every Christmas I preach on the significance of Charlie Brown’s television special – which just happened to have aired for the first time within a couple of months of my birth.
So I was delighted to find this NPR: In Character program devoted to Charlie Brown.
I especially like the take on the character as told by the young kids interviewed. Good ol’ Charlie more impressive than Captain America? I buy that.
So what say you all – is Charlie’s perennial attempt at kicking the football an act of idiocy, or a pure act of forgiveness and faith?
Just my thoughts,
Sean
To this day, I identify with Charlie Brown.
Growing up, I thought I was Charlie Brown. I even had a crush on a little red-haired girl.
And every Christmas I preach on the significance of Charlie Brown’s television special – which just happened to have aired for the first time within a couple of months of my birth.
So I was delighted to find this NPR: In Character program devoted to Charlie Brown.
I especially like the take on the character as told by the young kids interviewed. Good ol’ Charlie more impressive than Captain America? I buy that.
So what say you all – is Charlie’s perennial attempt at kicking the football an act of idiocy, or a pure act of forgiveness and faith?
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Few Suggestions...
Friend Jason put me onto this post, an open letter to Hollywood.
(Warning that the responses to the post can get crass, using some of that adult language that is marked by immaturity -- so read past the post at your own risk.)
I have to say, the letter made me laugh, and I agreed with much of it.
Most truthful line: "Just because a film is profitable, does not necessarily dictate a need for a sequel."
Request that is least likely to happen: "You need to start learning from your mistakes."
My favorite entry: "Once performers become tabloid fixtures, they should be cut from the studio roster. The more "famous for being famous" someone becomes, the less we want to see them in a film."
Now, if only we can find Hollywood's address...
Just my thoughts,
Sean
(Warning that the responses to the post can get crass, using some of that adult language that is marked by immaturity -- so read past the post at your own risk.)
I have to say, the letter made me laugh, and I agreed with much of it.
Most truthful line: "Just because a film is profitable, does not necessarily dictate a need for a sequel."
Request that is least likely to happen: "You need to start learning from your mistakes."
My favorite entry: "Once performers become tabloid fixtures, they should be cut from the studio roster. The more "famous for being famous" someone becomes, the less we want to see them in a film."
Now, if only we can find Hollywood's address...
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, June 19, 2008
We're Marley and Marley -- Ooooooooooooh!
I’ve been reading a lot over at Jeff Overstreet’s blog, getting riled about the kerfluffle over Christianity Today daring to review a movie with questionable content.
So it’s only fair that Jeff also supply me with some laughs to get past the riledation. (New word, I’m trade-marking it as we speak.)
Head on over for some old fashioned Muppet style fun.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
So it’s only fair that Jeff also supply me with some laughs to get past the riledation. (New word, I’m trade-marking it as we speak.)
Head on over for some old fashioned Muppet style fun.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Relevé Studios
I haven't posted anything in a while ... partly because Sean's such a good writer ... and also because I've been really busy.
"Busy doing what?", you ask.
Well, thanks for that lead-in to a blantant advertisement.
I became the manager for Relevé Studios in February.
Since then we've grown to over 100 students strong, had our first amazing recital, (see actual photos here of some students) and are now preparing for summer classes and camps.
If you are in the LA area - come by for a tour of our beautiful 6,000 sq ft space in Tarzana. (on Oxnard, just north of the 101 and just east of Reseda Blvd.)
If you are not in the LA area, but know someone who is - encourage them to come by and check us out.
We offer classes in 9 styles of dance, as well as acting, voice, piano, fitness, and even "parent & me". All ages are welcome.
Next week we start an 8-week improv class with Joel McCrary. And it's only $160 (for 16 hours of instuction - crazy!!)
We also have day camps for ages 4-18 in Shakespeare, Magic, Acting, Voice, Creative Dramatics, and my favorite - the "So We Know You Can Dance" camp where students will study 7 styles of dance in 5 days.
"Relevé" means "to lift up" - and that's what we hope to do for our students - lift them up.
Just my thoughts (and my passion and my job),
Cath
"Busy doing what?", you ask.
Well, thanks for that lead-in to a blantant advertisement.
I became the manager for Relevé Studios in February.
Since then we've grown to over 100 students strong, had our first amazing recital, (see actual photos here of some students) and are now preparing for summer classes and camps.If you are in the LA area - come by for a tour of our beautiful 6,000 sq ft space in Tarzana. (on Oxnard, just north of the 101 and just east of Reseda Blvd.)
If you are not in the LA area, but know someone who is - encourage them to come by and check us out.
We offer classes in 9 styles of dance, as well as acting, voice, piano, fitness, and even "parent & me". All ages are welcome.
Next week we start an 8-week improv class with Joel McCrary. And it's only $160 (for 16 hours of instuction - crazy!!)
We also have day camps for ages 4-18 in Shakespeare, Magic, Acting, Voice, Creative Dramatics, and my favorite - the "So We Know You Can Dance" camp where students will study 7 styles of dance in 5 days.
"Relevé" means "to lift up" - and that's what we hope to do for our students - lift them up.
Just my thoughts (and my passion and my job),
Cath
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
My Kind of Drive By...
Yesterday I drove by the house where George Burns and Gracie Allen used to live.
Just sayin'.
Them's my thoughts,
Sean
Just sayin'.
Them's my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Be Very Afraid...
Apparently, my niece likes alligators. More than fluffy bunnies or teddy bears.
She shocked the guide: not only was she willing to touch the thing, she insisted on snuggling up with it.
Me? I like to think of the cute little buggers in terms of shoes and handbags, rather than pets.
And it was her idea to put the baby in the alligator's mouth. Is she feeding the beast, or is this a trust exercise?
She shocked the guide: not only was she willing to touch the thing, she insisted on snuggling up with it.Me? I like to think of the cute little buggers in terms of shoes and handbags, rather than pets.
And it was her idea to put the baby in the alligator's mouth. Is she feeding the beast, or is this a trust exercise?
On seeing these pictures, my one hope was that this is an alligator statue, and not the real thing.
Or I'll be having a little intervention with my brother and sister-in-law...
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Friday, June 06, 2008
Iron Man Trailer to be a Feature
The Onion did a story that I missed, but have watched four times in the last day and it still makes me laugh -- because it is too true. (See it here.)
The gist: Rabid fans of the popular Iron Man Trailer are upset over news that the studio is planning on adapting the ninety second trailer into a full length movie. (Clearly the movie has already been made -- like I said, I'm missed the story at first.)
Made me think of my poor friend Cory, who is already hearing flack from die-hard fans about a movie that hasn't even been written yet. If you go to his site (and why wouldn't you?), scroll on down for his three-part "Power of the Fan" series.
And then watch the Onion story again, and laugh and laugh and laugh...
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Just Wondering...
If someone asks, “What is a rhetorical question?” – are you supposed to answer?
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
No Matter What Party You're With...
The Audacity of Now
Something has already been done, hasn't it? A reader writes:
Tomorrow I will go to the African American cemetery outside of Chicago where my great-grandparents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, neighbors, and my mother and father are buried. And I will tell them that they were right -- that if we studied hard, worked hard, kept the faith, fought for justice, prayed, that this day would come.
And it has.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
...And the Real Good Movie
I know I’m late to the party, but Cath and I finally saw LARS AND THE REAL GIRL.Loooooved it. (Imagine last line said with high pitched, sing-song voice.)
We liked it so much in fact that we are going to force our Small Group from church to watch it with us, so we can talk about it afterward.
Won’t say much here, other than an insight I got from Reel Geezers (thanks, Jeff, for the introduction to Reel Geezers).
Marcia pointed out that LARS is an answer to HARVEY (remember the flick with Jimmy Stewart and his invisible rabbit friend?). But whereas HARVEY was about a community trying to destroy the delusion of one man, LARS is…
A movie you really should see.
Really.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Monday, June 02, 2008
On the Couch
I was startled by a couch this weekend.
It was a nice enough of a couch, really. Pretty good condition, looked new.
Black leather that made it look professional; yet those large cushions that also made it look comfy.
It was upright, had all it’s legs, no tears in the fabric or anything like that.
In fact, based on an examination of the couch itself, I would say there was nothing about it that anyone should have found startling.
Just a nice, perfectly normal couch.
Sitting proudly in the third lane of the 405 freeway.
Made me wonder if that’s what’s wrong with me sometimes.
Based on an examination of me myself, I’m a nice enough of a fellow; upright, comfy, no tears in my fabric.
So maybe I just don’t belong in the third lane of the 405 freeway.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
It was a nice enough of a couch, really. Pretty good condition, looked new.
Black leather that made it look professional; yet those large cushions that also made it look comfy.
It was upright, had all it’s legs, no tears in the fabric or anything like that.
In fact, based on an examination of the couch itself, I would say there was nothing about it that anyone should have found startling.
Just a nice, perfectly normal couch.
Sitting proudly in the third lane of the 405 freeway.
Made me wonder if that’s what’s wrong with me sometimes.
Based on an examination of me myself, I’m a nice enough of a fellow; upright, comfy, no tears in my fabric.
So maybe I just don’t belong in the third lane of the 405 freeway.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Friday, May 30, 2008
Indiana Jones and The We Should Have Used Our Skulls To Write This Kingdom
SPOILER ALERT: I will be giving away all kinds of plot points in this post.
The key to watching INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is this: Do not think.
I gave this advice to a friend who said, “Okay, I won’t think much.”
He missed the point entirely.
Don’t think AT ALL.
It may ruin the movie for you.
There is a lot of fun to be had in this flick, but an occasional thought will reveal that not much makes sense. So enjoy the pretty pictures and remember the good ol’ days when the lore established in the beginning paid off at the end.
Here is my short list of “A Few Ways Indy 4 Could Have Gone from “Hey, Look, There’s Harrison With a Fedora, I Like Him!” to “Wow, That Was A Good Movie””:
1- In the opening sequence, it is revealed what the mystery is about. I thought: “Cool, they are going to have an interesting, archeological explanation to Area 51, aliens, etc.” Clearly, it wasn’t just, well, aliens – or else they wouldn’t have given away the act three reveal in the opening sequence.
So suggestion #1: Come up with an interesting explanation to Area 51, aliens, etc.
2- When you got two menacing FBI guys with the power to destroy careers, and they promise that they will be watching every step that Indy makes from now on… maybe they shouldn’t disappear completely from the movie. They made a promise to Indy and to the audience…
3- Vine Swinging – If this were the first film, and it were Indy in the tree, rather than watching a monkey for three seconds and that translating that to instant Johnny Weissmuller level skill, Indy would’ve fallen into it. He would have fumbled, grabbed a vine, swung accidentally, run into another vine, grabbed it for safety, fell forward, run into another vine…
Then he would have realized that he was traveling forward, he would have smiled, grabbed a vine, and-
Run into a tree. Before grabbing another vine. The sequence would have been fun, funny, and disbelief would have been more willingly suspended.
4-The villains getting what they deserved: Should’ve been cooler than, “Oh, that guy shouldn’t have waited that extra three seconds before leaving,” and “Oh, that girl is, well, I have no idea what is happening. But I bet her head explodes.”
5- Let Indy have a moment with the aliens. Another cool setup (with absolutely no payoff) is when Indy realizes that the visitors are archaeologists – just like him.
They have common ground! They speak a common language! They understand each other!
They never interact!
Ah well.
6- If you got a cool visual, at least attempt to have it make sense. One of many examples: The guys’ skulls are hyper magnetic? Cool, sure, especially when following a trail of gunpowder through a warehouse.
But when these interdimensional dudes were alive, how did they manage to walk through the treasure room to get to their thrones without their heads being bashed in by flying tiaras and doubloons?
Wait, that’s thinking too much.
Just my (darn it, thinking again!) thoughts,
Sean
The key to watching INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is this: Do not think.
I gave this advice to a friend who said, “Okay, I won’t think much.”
He missed the point entirely.
Don’t think AT ALL.
It may ruin the movie for you.
There is a lot of fun to be had in this flick, but an occasional thought will reveal that not much makes sense. So enjoy the pretty pictures and remember the good ol’ days when the lore established in the beginning paid off at the end.
Here is my short list of “A Few Ways Indy 4 Could Have Gone from “Hey, Look, There’s Harrison With a Fedora, I Like Him!” to “Wow, That Was A Good Movie””:
1- In the opening sequence, it is revealed what the mystery is about. I thought: “Cool, they are going to have an interesting, archeological explanation to Area 51, aliens, etc.” Clearly, it wasn’t just, well, aliens – or else they wouldn’t have given away the act three reveal in the opening sequence.
So suggestion #1: Come up with an interesting explanation to Area 51, aliens, etc.
2- When you got two menacing FBI guys with the power to destroy careers, and they promise that they will be watching every step that Indy makes from now on… maybe they shouldn’t disappear completely from the movie. They made a promise to Indy and to the audience…
3- Vine Swinging – If this were the first film, and it were Indy in the tree, rather than watching a monkey for three seconds and that translating that to instant Johnny Weissmuller level skill, Indy would’ve fallen into it. He would have fumbled, grabbed a vine, swung accidentally, run into another vine, grabbed it for safety, fell forward, run into another vine…
Then he would have realized that he was traveling forward, he would have smiled, grabbed a vine, and-
Run into a tree. Before grabbing another vine. The sequence would have been fun, funny, and disbelief would have been more willingly suspended.
4-The villains getting what they deserved: Should’ve been cooler than, “Oh, that guy shouldn’t have waited that extra three seconds before leaving,” and “Oh, that girl is, well, I have no idea what is happening. But I bet her head explodes.”
5- Let Indy have a moment with the aliens. Another cool setup (with absolutely no payoff) is when Indy realizes that the visitors are archaeologists – just like him.
They have common ground! They speak a common language! They understand each other!
They never interact!
Ah well.
6- If you got a cool visual, at least attempt to have it make sense. One of many examples: The guys’ skulls are hyper magnetic? Cool, sure, especially when following a trail of gunpowder through a warehouse.
But when these interdimensional dudes were alive, how did they manage to walk through the treasure room to get to their thrones without their heads being bashed in by flying tiaras and doubloons?
Wait, that’s thinking too much.
Just my (darn it, thinking again!) thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Father Brown's Father
Today is G.K. Chesterton's birthday -- so I was going to post, but Jeffrey already did it better. Love the quotes that Jeff picked, including one relating to his own field:
“By a curious confusion, many modern critics have passed from the proposition that a masterpiece may be unpopular to the other proposition that unless it is unpopular it cannot be a masterpiece.”
Or my favorite Chesterton chestnut:
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Oh, for any of my "unchurched" friends reading this and feeling prickly about it --don't. He isn't talking about you -- he is talking to those of us in the church. Hard pressed to find any of us Christ-ians living Christ's ideal.
-Just my thoughts,
Sean
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Joy Drafts
As you are aware, my friend Cory is writing/directing the FRAGGLE ROCK movie.
What you may not know is that he is giving some great insights into his process of writing at the same time - where he manages to combine the words "joy" and "first draft."
Just my thougthts,
Sean
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Lions and Crocodiles and Buffalo - Oh My!
At our church drama group’s meeting, friend Cassie did a little devotional on the this video.
I liked it so much, I’m stealing it.
So first, watch the video – Battle at Kruger.
Spoiler alert for the squeamish: it ends well. Really, it does. Trust me.
Okay, so now that you’ve watched the video – oh, wait some of you haven’t. That’s okay, I’ll wait.
Dum dee dum dum, dum dee dum…
Okay, now then:
Cassie saw this video a bit back, and like me she tends to see metaphors all around us. Here’s some of the metaphors she saw in the video, as it applies to our spiritual and community lives.
1. The Lions: Reminded her of 1 Peter chapter five, verses 8: “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”
2. The Flight: First instinct when the attack comes is to pick up and run all willy nilly – rather than use our gifts and strengths to stand together. This leaves the weakest among us most vulnerable – ala Baby buffalo.
3. The Crocodile: Seems like over kill, that croc attack, doesn’t it? But the truth is, it is when we are at our lowest, when we are suffering that the attacks compound on us. As the Irish say, “When it rains, it pours.”
4. The Cavalry: If you listen close, you will realize that it is the cries of Baby that bring the herd back. Lesson here: you (we!) are not alone – so when you are in need call out!
5. The Attack: A few of the leaders go up and start kicking some butt – or rather butting some cats. But it is the unity of the group, the impressive wall of support of the community that gives the leaders the ability to succeed. We’ve been given community to support each other in our need…
6. The Protection: Notice that once Baby gets away, the herd makes a fortress around her – the community makes a wall of protection around the weak.
7. “He chased him away”: Finish the battle – it isn’t just about getting the lions off of Baby, but getting the lions far away from Baby, so there won’t be another attack.
Cassie brought up the appropriate verse in Ecclesiastes 4:10: “If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!”
And wrapped up with the full verses that she started with in 1 Peter:
“Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion king for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings. And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.”
Just my thoughts,
Sean
I liked it so much, I’m stealing it.
So first, watch the video – Battle at Kruger.
Spoiler alert for the squeamish: it ends well. Really, it does. Trust me.
Okay, so now that you’ve watched the video – oh, wait some of you haven’t. That’s okay, I’ll wait.
Dum dee dum dum, dum dee dum…
Okay, now then:
Cassie saw this video a bit back, and like me she tends to see metaphors all around us. Here’s some of the metaphors she saw in the video, as it applies to our spiritual and community lives.
1. The Lions: Reminded her of 1 Peter chapter five, verses 8: “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”
2. The Flight: First instinct when the attack comes is to pick up and run all willy nilly – rather than use our gifts and strengths to stand together. This leaves the weakest among us most vulnerable – ala Baby buffalo.
3. The Crocodile: Seems like over kill, that croc attack, doesn’t it? But the truth is, it is when we are at our lowest, when we are suffering that the attacks compound on us. As the Irish say, “When it rains, it pours.”
4. The Cavalry: If you listen close, you will realize that it is the cries of Baby that bring the herd back. Lesson here: you (we!) are not alone – so when you are in need call out!
5. The Attack: A few of the leaders go up and start kicking some butt – or rather butting some cats. But it is the unity of the group, the impressive wall of support of the community that gives the leaders the ability to succeed. We’ve been given community to support each other in our need…
6. The Protection: Notice that once Baby gets away, the herd makes a fortress around her – the community makes a wall of protection around the weak.
7. “He chased him away”: Finish the battle – it isn’t just about getting the lions off of Baby, but getting the lions far away from Baby, so there won’t be another attack.
Cassie brought up the appropriate verse in Ecclesiastes 4:10: “If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!”
And wrapped up with the full verses that she started with in 1 Peter:
“Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion king for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings. And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.”
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Catcher in the Rye, Hold the Mayo
For this month’s book club, we read THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Sallinger. It was swell. It killed me, really.
Salinger shows an understanding of human nature in the simplest of things. Like when the protagonist, Holden, is waiting for a girl that’s late. He’s upset until he sees her – and how pretty she is.
Holden points out that all those cartoons of guys who are angry because their dates are late is all bunk, because, “If a girl looks swell when she meets you, who gives a damn if she’s late? Nobody.”
Yeah, the bane of all us guys with pretty wives/girlfriends – too hard to stay mad. We’re just not programmed to combat good looks.
Holden has a few other ideas that struck me, mostly as they reverberate throughout my own take on life, religion and politics.
First, in talking about a comment made about himself near the beginning of the novel: “It’s partly true, too, but it isn’t all true. People always think something’s all true.”
Second, closer to the end of the book, he is railing against a debate teacher that kept telling him to unify and simplify his speeches.
“Some things you can’t do that to. I mean you can’t hardly ever simplify and unify something just because somebody wants you to.”
I find it interesting that Sallinger makes the case up front, and towards the end, that some things in life aren’t so simple as to be able to be reduced to a bumper sticker; even people aren’t so simple as to be reduced to a label (or at least one that is all true).
Sallinger’s novel itself has often been attacked – typically by those that have simplified the novel, and tried to make it “all” one thing.
Of course, you can’t win elections without oversimplifying things like the issues. (“If you question our methods, you’re anti-American!”)
And it’s easier to win an argument if you can claim something is all true. (“If A is at all true, then B must be completely false!”)
And it’s a pain to try and keep congregants happy if you make outrageous claims like “G-d is multifaceted and complex.”
Okay, I admit it – rather than figure all this complex stuff out, I’d like to forget about it and just spend my time contemplating how swell my girl looks.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Salinger shows an understanding of human nature in the simplest of things. Like when the protagonist, Holden, is waiting for a girl that’s late. He’s upset until he sees her – and how pretty she is.
Holden points out that all those cartoons of guys who are angry because their dates are late is all bunk, because, “If a girl looks swell when she meets you, who gives a damn if she’s late? Nobody.”
Yeah, the bane of all us guys with pretty wives/girlfriends – too hard to stay mad. We’re just not programmed to combat good looks.
Holden has a few other ideas that struck me, mostly as they reverberate throughout my own take on life, religion and politics.
First, in talking about a comment made about himself near the beginning of the novel: “It’s partly true, too, but it isn’t all true. People always think something’s all true.”
Second, closer to the end of the book, he is railing against a debate teacher that kept telling him to unify and simplify his speeches.
“Some things you can’t do that to. I mean you can’t hardly ever simplify and unify something just because somebody wants you to.”
I find it interesting that Sallinger makes the case up front, and towards the end, that some things in life aren’t so simple as to be able to be reduced to a bumper sticker; even people aren’t so simple as to be reduced to a label (or at least one that is all true).
Sallinger’s novel itself has often been attacked – typically by those that have simplified the novel, and tried to make it “all” one thing.
Of course, you can’t win elections without oversimplifying things like the issues. (“If you question our methods, you’re anti-American!”)
And it’s easier to win an argument if you can claim something is all true. (“If A is at all true, then B must be completely false!”)
And it’s a pain to try and keep congregants happy if you make outrageous claims like “G-d is multifaceted and complex.”
Okay, I admit it – rather than figure all this complex stuff out, I’d like to forget about it and just spend my time contemplating how swell my girl looks.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Morale Boosters
Some inspired silliness to get you through the weekend.
One of our readers was at his child’s school for a pirate themed event. They sported a t-shirt with a picture of a pirate, and the words, “The beatings will continue until school morale improves!”
From Jeff Overstreet’s blog, the final, redemptive scene from the original STAR WARS saga. Not quite how I remember it, but…
Also from Jeff, a take on the PC/Mac commercials, using Marvel/DC comics. Said to say, a little too true…
From Brian Davidson, who warns: “Don’t watch this drunk,” and “If you like graffiti, this takes it to a whole new level. And if you don't, you may not survive it...” Graffiti animation – I gotta wonder how long this took, and all in public spaces! Warning --- it is freaky.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
One of our readers was at his child’s school for a pirate themed event. They sported a t-shirt with a picture of a pirate, and the words, “The beatings will continue until school morale improves!”
From Jeff Overstreet’s blog, the final, redemptive scene from the original STAR WARS saga. Not quite how I remember it, but…
Also from Jeff, a take on the PC/Mac commercials, using Marvel/DC comics. Said to say, a little too true…
From Brian Davidson, who warns: “Don’t watch this drunk,” and “If you like graffiti, this takes it to a whole new level. And if you don't, you may not survive it...” Graffiti animation – I gotta wonder how long this took, and all in public spaces! Warning --- it is freaky.
And below, a repeat -- but a timely portrait of a now popular superhero, courtesy of Bryan Ballinger.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Speed and Saving
I was going to talk about SPEED RACER today, but instead I got jazzed about something over at Jeff Overstreet’s blog.
So on Speed I’ll race through my thoughts:
It’s not as bad as the critics say.
I enjoyed it.
Everyone I know who isn’t a professional critic that saw it enjoyed it.
It is twenty minutes too long in the middle.
The critic who said, “If I can’t follow it, how can a child?” doesn’t understand that children are much more savvy and attuned to this sort of thing than he is. It’s like saying, “Hey, if I can’t get into the kingdom of heaven, how can a child do it?”
Says more about that speaker than the child.
Okay, so now about Jeff’s blog, Looking Closer Journal.
Dan Merchant wrote a book (now a documentary) with one of the best titles ever:
“Lord, Save Us From Your Followers.”
Jeff talks about. So go read Jeff.
That’s all I wanted to say.
Oh, listen to the Matt Lauer interview. Favorite line, “We are way more comfortable being right than we are about trying to do the hard thing of loving one other.”
Just my thoughts,
Sean
So on Speed I’ll race through my thoughts:
It’s not as bad as the critics say.
I enjoyed it.
Everyone I know who isn’t a professional critic that saw it enjoyed it.
It is twenty minutes too long in the middle.
The critic who said, “If I can’t follow it, how can a child?” doesn’t understand that children are much more savvy and attuned to this sort of thing than he is. It’s like saying, “Hey, if I can’t get into the kingdom of heaven, how can a child do it?”
Says more about that speaker than the child.
Okay, so now about Jeff’s blog, Looking Closer Journal.
Dan Merchant wrote a book (now a documentary) with one of the best titles ever:
“Lord, Save Us From Your Followers.”
Jeff talks about. So go read Jeff.
That’s all I wanted to say.
Oh, listen to the Matt Lauer interview. Favorite line, “We are way more comfortable being right than we are about trying to do the hard thing of loving one other.”
Just my thoughts,
Sean
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
You Know What Rocks?
Fraggles!
Friend Cory is writing/directing the Fraggle Rock movie with the Hensons.
Congrats Cory, for landing such a cool project.
And congrats Hensons for landing such a cool talent.
Just my thoughts,
Sean
If you check out Cory's blog, scroll down to the Hoodwinked news for some heroic casting. Pretty cool, if you ask me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)