The Greatest Trick of the Devil...

“It is never easy and it is never comfortable to have your core beliefs challenged, but it is always healthy.”

Check out the Nightline debate on the existence of Satan.

I’m still unsure as to how one can say there is no “good” or “bad”; yet insist that there is a “better” way to be.

Isn't "better" the comparative form of "good?"

What is the comparative form of "everything is one?"

I suppose that would be "everything is oner."

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Hollywood's Greatest Year

Every silver lining has a cloud. I love working with BADD and the opportunity to participate in a continuous flow of videos and live pieces.

But BADD takes up my Monday nights, so I can’t partake in things like this:

The Academy of Motion Pictures is screening all ten of the best picture nominees of 1939, dubbed “Hollywood’s Greatest Year.”

A different movie each Monday night for ten weeks.

GONE WITH THE WIND. You know, I’ve never seen the whole thing in one sitting. Maybe, my dear, I should give a darn.

STAGECOACH. John Wayne and John Ford tie their names irrevocably to what is perhaps the most American of an American industry: the Western.

WUTHERING HEIGHTS. Heathcliff without lasagna, as Heathcliff was meant to be.

DARK VICTORY. Two things Oscar loves – a big star, and a character dying from a horrible disease. Yet she still didn’t win…

LOVE AFFAIR. The female version of The Dirty Dozen. (What, no Sleepless fans out there?)

GOODBYE MR. CHIPS. And a whole new generation enters the teaching field.

NINOTCHKA. Garbo speaks – and makes us laugh.

MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. Jimmy shows us the world, not as it is, but as it ought to be.

OF MICE AND MEN. Burgess looks so young!

And THE WIZARD OF OZ. Those freaky, freaky monkeys!

PLUS, and here’s part of the beauty: each screening will include an animated short from that year, and an episode from the BUCK ROGERS serial.

All for $25 – or $2.50 per night of movie magic.

Sigh. Mondays. Why did it have to be Mondays?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Unsung

What I’m thankful for this week: unsung heroes.

We live in a world where the traders responsible for crashing our economy for short term profit state proudly that if they were given a do over, they wouldn’t change a thing.

(“Of course not, it made money for us. Who in their right mind would change?”)

A world where the most fervent religious voices define their faith by what gives them the most personal power.

And where our politicians take polls to determine what their moral convictions will be for this day.

In such a world, it is good to be reminded that we are surrounded by heroes.

Not just those who are heroic by profession – police, firefighters, soldiers.

Not just those who are heroic by their every day existence – teachers, parents, role models.

But those who make a choice to risk all, sacrifice all, devote all to make a stand for what is right.

Even though it won’t bring them wealth, or power, or popularity.

Folks like Irena Sendler.

Never heard of her? Me neither.

And that’s the point.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

72 Boxes of Dreams (And One OED)

Janet has lots of books – more than I ever had.

I’m envious of Janet.

Just had the image of Janet packing up and moving 3,000 Kindles.

Not quite the same thing.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Battlestar: A Lack of Stuff

Spoilers ahead.

I am a big fan of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.

Certainly one of the best things to hit television in decades.

Artistic excellence, exciting storytelling, depth of character.

Socially relevant in a way that only the best of art can be.

Which is why it is a bummer that the finale was so lame.

Television without Pity posits the questions and gaping holes left by the episode. I’ll leave most of it to them. (Besides, they do their analysis with pretty pictures.)

My biggest disappoints were setups without payoffs.

The existence of Daniel. The boxing of Xena Warrior Princess (we were told repeatedly that she was only boxed, and could come back – and of course she doesn’t come back). The identity question of Starbuck.

And the biggest waste of space: the Opera House. After leading us on with visions for years, the importance of the Opera House turns out to be:

Nada. Zilch. Zingo a bingo. If Gaius and Six were not there, it wouldn’t have changed a thing. Athena and Madame President lost a lot of sleep over nothing.

Okay, now let me defend the finale, followed by the reason that my defense of the finale doesn’t hold water.

Sure, the last hour was a snooze fest, but the battle sequence was pretty exciting, right?

Yes. And no.

Yes, in real time. The battle sequence while watching the battle sequence was very exciting.

But like the Opera House teaser, the battle sequence becomes less and less exciting the more one thinks about it. And here’s why:

Lack of stakes.

Only one significant character died (or was even injured) in a significant way.

In retrospect, it is clear that no one was in any real danger. The writers weren’t willing to risk anything in the finale.

And if they aren’t willing to take risks, well, it just isn’t that exciting.

(I think of Wash in SERENITY: “I’m a leaf on the wind…”)

Let’s add it up:

Cost of Galactica’s final mission: nada. (Even the death of the ship doesn’t count, as she only had one more jump or so left in her.)

Gained from her final mission: nada. Unless you believe that 30,000 humans and cylons would forget to breed, leaving only a rescued hybrid to create the new human race.

Me? I’m thinking that sitting on a primitive planet without any technology to provide entertainment, someone somewhere at some point is going to think, “Hey, I’m bored. Wanna contribute to the creation of the new human race?”

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Wild

They Get Younger Every Year

As the stars of Hollywood seem younger and younger, I'm feeling older and older.

But now I think they've gone too far -- or too young.

If one were to go to imdb, there is a box at the right labelled:

Born today: Tuesday, 24 March, 2009: Alyson Hannigan.

Born today.

Yep, you read that right. She was born today.

That makes her, what? 16 hours old at most.

Stars in two long running televisions series, made a couple of movies, and not even a day old.

Man, I'm a slacker.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

It's All Releve

Relevé (ruhl-uh-vay)
Definition: • Meaning raised, lifted up or relifted • A ballet term which is a rise from a bent kneee to the balls of the feet





Releve Studios, where my wife works is pretty cool. (That's her at her desk.)

How cool? Wow, I wish there was a video where the founder explains it herself.

Oh, wait, here's one.

The founders (and our good friends) talk about the struggles in building the dream. This is a short shot by BADD to augment a sermon at Bel Air.

Enjoy.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Peanuts Pack Power

I just learned through Cynopsis that “Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite.”

Cynopsis being an entertainment information site, I first thought, “Wow, what would Charlie Brown be doing in dynamite?”

But that sort of made sense, when I thought of the explosive power of Lucy’s five-fingered reasoning combined with the snap of Linus’ bull-whip blanket.

But then I realized they probably mean the Jimmy-Carter-Planters-Airline-Staple-Joke variety of peanuts.

Which brings up the whole dilemma of peanut allergies, as well as other things that inquiring minds want to know.

Question: Are terrorists now restricted from bringing bombs onto flights that are allergy safe zones?

Question: If enemy combatants have air-born peanut allergies, does a stick of dynamite constitute a WMD?

Question: Do we need to stockpile an equivalent number of jelly grenades?

Question: Does the pentagon have an Operation Fluffernutter?

Question: Does the FDA require all bomb manufacturers to list the fat and cholesterol content of their products?

All I can say is, GW Carver would be so proud.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

UP With Morality

Looking Closer touches on one of my favorite topics, namely the Christian artist as it relates to the "Christian" product (quotes don't do enough to distance those two words), including an excerpt from a Radix interview with Pete Docter, the director of Pixar's UP and MONSTER'S INC.

Favorite quote:

"To me art is about expressing something that can’t be said in literal terms. You can say it in words, but it’s always just beyond the reach of actual words, and you’re doing whatever you can to communicate a sense of something that is beyond you."

Just my thoughts,

Sean

TV Viewers, Musical Performers, and a Gaffney Vid

Couple of interesting links for today (unlike those boring links of yesteryear):

Over at the IMAGE Blog, Santiago Ramos talks about the rise of the intelligent television viewer.

Favorite line is the closing one: "Not all art, and discourse about art, takes place on the campus quad; actually, a lot of it is born in the public square."

Over at Christ and Pop Culture, Richard Clark cribs from the Boston Conservatory to remind musicians that "You are not entertainers."

And finally, I toot my own horn ('cuz it is rude to toot in other people's horns), a BADD video I wrote called "The Janitor" is available for public viewing. I also co-write on "Irreplaceable," which still gives me giggles.

Cath appears in both vids, so if you wouldn't watch for the writing, you might watch for her performances.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Hey Bub, I'm a Marvel...

A while back, someone thought to spoof the "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" ads by having the characters from Marvel comics and DC comparing themselves.

The first one was funny, the second one was funnier, then the market was flooded with them and some were okay and most were not that interesting.

But now we have a growl fest between Wolverine and Rorschach -- and I'm laughing again.

Thanks to Tamara for the heads up.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Get Me Some Getty

What I am thankful for this week: Museums.

My small group sponsors art immersion workshops for Cloud & Fire, an outreach to at-risk inner city youth. Our last session was a trip to the Getty Center.

Among the activities (one suggested by the Getty) was a poem formula: study a painting, then create a poem by using a one word title, an action, a comparison, then a longer title.

Two of the kids, after noticing a halo effect on a painting of Jesus wearing the crown of thorns, wrote this:

“God

Dying for us
Like a man.

God in the sunset.”

Hmmn. Guess they got inspired.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Who Watches the Watchmen Part III

Continued from yesterday’s post, including the spoiler alert. The spoilers are getting more major here, as I will be discussing the end of the film.

The emotional climax of the movie, THE WATCHMEN, takes place on Mars. Laurie discovers who her daddy is, and breaks down into tears.

This prompts the closed-to-humanity Dr. Manhattan to realize that he is vested after all, that he does care.

Big moment.

Okay, show of hands: how many of you found yourselves holding back tears at that point? What, no one?

Okay, let me ask this: how many of you thought before this moment in the film that Laurie even cared about her dad? Ah, same hands.

The biggest glitch with this film, the thing that makes it an okay film while keeping it from being a DARK KNIGHT, is this:

The filmmakers failed to make us connect emotionally to the characters or story.


The problem (in my opinion, as if this whole blog were anything but merely my opinion) isn’t in lack of character depth or complexity; and it isn’t in performance.

Sure, part of it is in Snyder’s wrongly-hyped action against his glossed-over character.

And part of it is in condensing the whole thing down to a single serving. (This should have been an HBO mini-series, twelve episodes long.)

But the big problem is in structure.

Three mistakes are made by Snyder and company dealing with structure, and those errors undercut the heart of the film.

(Hey, I’m going deep into spoiler territory here, so read on at your own risk.)

PAYOFFS WITHOUT SETUPS (Janet - the filmmakers should read your blog!)

Laurie being case-in-point. In order to feel the importance of the revelation that Blake is her father, we must know emotionally what her relationship to him is.

We know it intellectually – Blake is a major [insert foul word here], so we can assume that she wouldn’t want him as a daddy.

But to be grounded, we need a scene, a set-up. We need to see (preferably in the first act) Laurie and Blake together AFTER Laurie finds out what he did to her mom. If we know what their relationship was, then we would know the cost of the revelation.

Another example: I am a New Yorker. The city is destroyed in Watchmen. It didn’t bother me. Why?

Because I wasn’t set up to care. Only one person that I even met (the psychiatrist) died, and I didn’t know him well enough to be vested.



The book took a lot of time building relationships with tertiary characters in NYC, so when the newsstand owner and the kid that never pays for comic books hug right before the big bang – I’m actually getting emotional just thinking about it now.

[Side thought: How do you do that in a movie with so much else going on? Make it Hollis. Give him two more scenes with Dan throughout, and show the boom from his point of view. Just a suggestion – one of a hundred ways to make this work.]

USING THE WRONG STRUCTURE FOR A MOVIE

The film is faithful to the book.

The book is twelve stories, with twelve separate sets of balances, unbalances, quests, crisis and new balances.

The film is one story, with a balance, unbalance, quest, unbalance, balance, balance, unbalance, quest, crisis, quest, unbalance, unbalance, balance, quest, crisis, unbalance….

The film doesn’t move to a satisfying finish because it keeps stopping momentum to go back and re-give different act one beats far into act two and even act three.

FORGETTING THAT THIS IS FILM NOT LITERATURE

The strength of lit: words which build details to create ideas.

The strength of film: images which build action to create story.

Moore/Gibbons were all about detail, creating a novel masterpiece of ideas.

Snyder didn’t have time to dwell on details, nor should he.

Yet he didn’t change the structure of his story to play to his media’s strength.

I’ve mentioned the emotional climax of the film; let’s talk about the action (or plot) climax as one example of this problem.


The final showdown is against Ozmandias in his frozen lair – Nite Owl and Rorschach racing to prevent the end of the world as we know it.

Oh, I should mention that this takes place (as Ozzy so smugly points out) AFTER the end of the world as we know it.

The physical climax is a pointless exercise, as all the physical world answers are in – the villain has already won.

The climax doesn’t work for this kind of film – it deflates, rather than inflates the impact of the action.

This ending does work for a literature piece, where the ideas are still fighting against one another through to the real climax – Dr. Manhattan versus Rorschach in the frigid void that can not sustain life.

But, alas, film is not literature.

And rather than making a great film, what got made was a visual aid for a book already written in visuals.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

PS I was discussing with a friend whether we would have noticed these flaws in the script stage; his thought was that a multitude of such errors would have been covered by the hand of a director whose heart was on the characters, rather than just the action. I agree.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes: Part II

Continued from yesterday; as does the warning that there are spoilers ahead.

I really like the book THE WATCHMEN.

I still get new things from it every time I reread the opus. It makes me think; it quickens the pulse; it gets me to feel.

So I had high hopes for the film; but not high expectations. I knew this would be hard to film. But not impossible.

The thing is, it should have been better.

WHAT DOESN’T WORK

The movie misses the mark in three main areas: the intellect, the action, and the heart.

The intellectual side fares the best, surprisingly. A big part of THE WATCHMEN is the ideas, and a lot of those ideas come through in the film.

What makes a hero? What cost is justifiable for a greater good? Where is the moral line that one must not cross? Questions that would have been too obvious under the last president, but still are front and center today (stem cell research, anyone?).

Questions of identity, of loyalty, of integrity.

Much of that came through – although it would have been stronger if the visual take by the director supported the mental take of the script. (See prior post for example of idea being undercut by action.)

WEAKNESS IN THE ACTION

This is an action movie, so I suppose action should take precedence. And there are some very well choreographed sequences.

But the action doesn’t carry the thrill it needed to, for a couple of reasons.

First, a lack of heart (see tomorrow’s post) – we as an audience need to care about the outcome of the action.

But also because we saw too much of it.

Zach Snyder stayed pretty loyal to the comic series; but one of his additions was to make the violence more explicit and gruesome (he also amped up the sex).

Every sawed off body part or protruding bone becomes a disruption to the action. Such explicitness may be good for a DAWN OF THE DEAD, but not so much for a straight up action movie.

I guess I’m trying to say that Snyder has a vivid imagination – he can see a lot on a page of a script.

But he doesn’t have a very creative imagination.

Two examples: in the prison riot, he leaves behind the graphic novel to graphically show us the deaths of Big Figure’s first goon. Gross, cringeworthy, and pulls the audience out of the film.

But he sticks to the comic to show – or rather not show – the demise of Big Figure himself.

Just a swinging bathroom door; a flushed toilet; a seepage of blood under the door. By far creepier, and cooler.

And pulls the audience into the film.

Let’s take the sex example as well. Snyder undercuts a perfectly fine visual joke that Gibbons/Moore gave him.

The hapless couple of Laurie and Dan, who couldn’t quite achieve sexual union earlier, are now all a-tremble from their first mission in costume. As the Owl spaceship floats in the sky, they embrace; their clothes fall to the floor.

Cut to an outer shot of the Owl spaceship. A large flame erupts from the ship’s guns.

Really, what more do you need to know?

Well, Snyder felt that we needed, I don’t know – how long did it go on? – a half hour of watching Dan and Laurie shifting positions from one state of ecstasy to the next.

And, after leaving no doubt of the multiple successes of their coupling, he cuts to that now pointless outside shot.

Really, who needed to know that much?

So by overexposure, the action of the flick doesn’t quite thrill as much as it should.

(Side note: okay, every one – coolest move in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies?

Elf Legolas getting on that horse. Sweet.

Coolest move of THE WACTHMEN? Rorshack in Veidt’s artic palace, dropping off that stone block, while turning and catching himself.

Why couldn’t we have spent more time on stuff like that?)

Okay, now the final failure:

Why the movie came across so very, very cold.

To be continued…

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

Spoilers ahead.

After much anticipation, I saw THE WATCHMEN. So here’s my take:

I guess it’s okay.

What generates such enthusiasm from me? Let’s take a look-see.

WHAT WORKED

Great visuals, and some intense action. The murder of Blake among them – great scene, well choreographed, well shot.

And I really enjoyed the opening credits montage – a marvelous way to introduce us to the world, and get us up to date.

And there were some really nice acting performances – especially Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. Marvelous work.

I even enjoyed the understated and underappreciated voice and facial work of Billy Crudup as the CGI’d Dr. Manhattan. Veidt’s line about being able to read ocean’s of emotion in the blue giant resonated with truth – a lot going on with minimal movement.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

If you are unfamiliar with the graphic novel, it will help you to know these two things going in:

IT’S NOT ABOUT HEROES. The story is about vigilantes, not heroes.

It asks: what kind of a person would dress up in a costume, and go a-beating on the bad guys? Not in a fictional world, but in the real world?

The answer, of course, is messed up people.

So don’t go in thinking that you will find caped crusaders and big blue boy scouts; instead you will find folks with a screw or two loose playing out fantasies to try and find meaning and fulfillment.

Another helpful tidbit:

THESE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE SUPER POWERS. Dr. Manhattan is the only powered character in the movie.

You might be confused, because the other heroes punch holes in walls without scraping their knuckles.

And they leap incredible distances in the air without use of wires.

And they do marvelous, super feats that common folk can only dream of doing.

For example, Dan goes for fifteen years without working out. His first fight since retirement, and he is outnumbered by ten to one, surrounded by a gang (that probably has been working out).

Yet they can’t lay a hand on the guy, as he takes them down without working up a sweat.

But he doesn’t have super powers.

What he does have is a director who is looking for hyped up action – ala 300. Or that Crouching / Hiding movie.

Standard, really, for action movies of this type.

But you still might be confused, because the director forgot what the theme of his movie was.

You see, THE WATCHMEN is supposed to ask the question: what if real people dressed up in costumes?

So the psychological drama deals with real people, with grounded egos and jealousies, personal level angst and relational problems, and messy attempts to find meaning and connection.

And the action part of the movie deals with fantasy characters able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Two completely different and clashing movies compete for space on the same film reel -- each one undercutting the other.

The result: the audience can’t rest in either genre, making it harder to enjoy the action or the drama.

Which brings me to WHAT DOESN’T WORK:

To be continued.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Watching Time

So I’ll be watching THE WATCHMEN tomorrow.

Until that time, I’m getting my fix through these variations.

WALL-E trailer – makes me appreciate a whole new dramatic side of Wall-E.



The Watchmen Saturday morning cartoon. Who knew?



My favorite piece of Watchmen artwork, done by Evan Shaner. Answering the question, what if Schulz had drawn the Watchmen.



Just my thoughts,

Sean

Jean Louise, Stand Up

Older Scout: [narrating] There just didn't seem to be anyone or anything Atticus couldn't explain. Though it wasn't a talent that would arouse the admiration of any of our friends, Jem and I had to admit he was very good at that - but that was *all* he was good at... we thought.

Thing I am thankful for this week: I met and had the privilege of watching Horton Foote work.

Horton was a master playwright and screenwriter, with such titles as TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL, TENDER MERCIES, and, of course, the screenplay adaptation of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

MOCKINGBIRD is one of my favorite films of all time; and the scene where Scout innocently steps between the mob and a lynching remains a kick in the gut to me.

Scout: Don't you remember me, Mr. Cunningham? I'm Jean Louise Finch. You brought us some hickory nuts one early morning, remember? We had a talk. I went and got my daddy to come out and thank you. I go to school with your boy. I go to school with Walter; he's a nice boy. Tell him 'hey' for me, won't you?

I met him when he was directing his own ROADS TO HOME at the Lamb’s in New York. It was shortly after his wife had passed, and the production was a bit of work therapy, surrounded by a hand-picked cast of friends, including his daughter, Hallie.

Horton’s true gift was in creating character. His stories aren’t much on plot; not a whole lot happens. A woman gets on a bus. A boy asks a girl to a dance. A woman listens to a drunk yelling on her lawn.

But what a rich character that bus rider is! What deep torments of teen angst does that boy carry! What ripples through life does that women bear with the echoes of the drunk yeller!

The only other Horton I ever heard tell of was the one that could perceive the cry that no one else could. This was true of Mr. Foote – he could feel the pulsing need inside the quietest of persons.

The scope of the worlds he created were small, no bigger than a two room apartment with blankets on the couch to make it a bed.

But those cramped quarters held a cosmos of drama – enough in one character to fill up the whole of Texas.

Horton Foote made his way home yesterday, reuniting at long last with his wife. His gentle voice will be missed.

Reverend Sykes: Jean Louise. Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Hmmm, Cookies...

I'm quite pleased with my "What Girl Scout Cookie Are You" result (see below). Thanks to Janet for the link.

You Are Thin Mints

You are bold and brave. You dare to be different, and you are confident about who you are. Your fearlessness has paid off. You are extremely well liked and popular. You are charismatic and charming without even trying to be. People appreciate your unique take on life. You are willing to take risks, speak your mind, and live life to the fullest.

What Girl Scout Cookie Are You?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

A Few Thousand Words

My niece, baby Abby, fixing a truck. Good to learn a trade at a young age.

I’ve been telling people that I met part of this American Idol rising star. I met his kidney, or at least the person who had his kidney before he did. Read about it here. Cath and I worked with Walter Cosand and family at the Masterworks Festival.

Friend Cory gave a lecture to some kids at our church on Ash Wednesday. As a teaching prop, he had a bowl of ashes, which he apparently forgot he was holding.

This was the result.

All kinds of metaphors of sins being covered, etc. jump to mind.

But really, its just funny.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

And No One Is Happy

This has been floating around a bit, but made me laugh -- and quiver at how true.

"Everything is amazing right now, and no one is happy."

Found it first at Provocative Christian. The comedian being interviewed by Conan is Lewis C.K.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Slumdog Button

Continued from earlier post; spoiler alert also continues.

Of course the big differences between the BUTTON and SLUMDOG are thematic.

Here’s how I see it:

The theme of BENJAMIN BUTTON: Life is a random series of meaningless, unconnected events.

Ben lives a long time and meets a lot of people – but no one is changed for having known him.

He is such a milquetoast presence that even the alleged one true love of his life is so unaffected by him that his daughter doesn’t know he existed – even though both Ben and daughter overlapped in mom’s life for nearly a decade.

The true metaphor for this theme is the clock that runs backward.

I saw the movie with a friend, who asked afterward (confessing that she felt stupid for missing it): What did the clock have to do with the movie?

The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing.

The story of the clock never crosses paths with the story of Button.

The timing of the clock does not coincide with the birth, life or death of Button.

Even the purpose of the clock (so that the mistakes or mishaps of the past may be corrected) does not come into play.

GB Shaw said “Youth is wasted on the young.” Not so with Button – after making his youthful mistakes, he has his health and vigor to exploit.

Which he doesn’t do.

The clock is a random object, that while seemingly similar to the story in its mechanics, is actually a random, meaningless side story.

(And, ironically, easily replaced with better technology…)

The theme of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE: Life is a series of meaningful events that connect with significance

Each life event builds one on another, echoing throughout. There are no “throw-away” scenes, as the scars of each tragedy (literally) as well as the joys of each triumph clash together to create character and action.

The metaphor for this theme is the game show.

Every incident in the movie is critical, as they form the basis for Jamal’s success in answering (life’s) questions. If he did not go on this specific journey, he could not be the man in the contestant chair.

SLUMDOG goes beyond showing significance of life, to the deeper question: is life about predestination or choice?

Certainly the fates seem to be colluding – why else would his life be the answer to every single question in the quiz? (Save three – each being helped along by a lifeline. Sort of.)

Yet it is Jamal’s work and ethics that help him claim his prize (and separates him from Salim, who experienced the same events) – his relentless search, his refusal to give up on Latika, his willingness to serve (just a chai carrier), his generosity to those around him.

If he did not make the choices he did, he could not have found Latika.

If the gods (or G-d?) did not align history, he could not have found Latika.

So the director of MILLIONS gives us another showcase of faith plus works.

One more note on SLUMDOG: Some folks were put off by the Bollywood tribute at the end – I really like the visual metaphor.

Jamal and Latika dancing with the community – the connectedness of it all.

Jamal and Latika dancing alone – the personal nature of it all.

Jamal and Latika dancing as children (note only as the pre-orphanage age, not the post-orphanage age) – the innocence retained despite it all.

May we all meet joyously on the platform.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Benjamin Millionaire

Warning: plot spoilers ahead.

Here’s the plot of a movie I saw recently:

The story is told in a series of flashbacks by the male character.

A boy and girl meet as small children, and develop an intense friendship. It is clear that they are soul mates, destined to be together.

The events of life force a separation; but throughout their lives, fate keeps bringing them together – only to separate them again.

Until finally, against all odds, they unite one more time.

And then she takes care of him until he dies as a baby, and she croaks, and New Orleans floods.

OR they joyfully dance on the train station platform, along with their kid-selves, in a visual metaphor of their journey.

You see, this movie was released twice this year (and got two nominations for Best Picture Oscar), once under the title THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON and then again as SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.

There are of course major differences between the two movies.

For one, SLUMDOG doesn’t rely on special effects, while BUTTON is a technical marvel – a brilliant mix of effects and make-up.

Too brilliant, perhaps, as the technical masks what’s missing: heart.

In fact, the technical wizardry may be responsible for one of the (many) big blunders in the film: not following through on its own premise.

The big idea is this: a man is born into an old body, and the body ages backwards, while the man inside ages forward.

The best scenes are near the beginning, as we watch what appears to be an old man looking with wonder on the new world. The juxtaposition of old flesh and new soul is delightful and endearing.

However, for anyone waiting to see what it is like for an old soul to inhabit a young body, this movie fails to deliver. The filmmakers gave up on the premise, instead allowing “young” Ben to be a thirty year old in spirit, or a twenty-something traipsing around the world on a post-college find-himself-tour, or a bratty kid with no sense of having lived a full life.

(Why does he have “old person” diseases on both sides of his aging?)

None of these incarnations come with an old soul – and such a missed opportunity is painful.

(They even have a shot of some guy showing Ben how to fix his motorcycle. Shouldn't it be the other way around? The guy who has been on the earth for eighty years showing the younger-but-looks-older guy how to fix things?)

In fact, the whole of Ben’s “wisdom” years, from say fifty to eighty, are covered in a single, mos montage.

Why do I blame the tech?

It just seems too coincidental that the period of time that requires no computer and make-up magic to make Button look like Brad is the part of the movie that the movie makers themselves were too bored with to explore.

Of course the big differences between the BUTTON and SLUMDOG are thematic.

To be continued…

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Earl of Sandwich, Duke of Doughnuts

Thing about me #4 of 25:

In a blog last week, I pointed out that I had three dreams as a kid, benchmarks really, that would show me that I arrived as an adult.

#1: A wine cellar, but instead of being full of wine, it would be full of soda.

I could just imagine myself, swirling a fine glass of Ale La’ Ginger ’07.

Or sniffing in the fruity aroma off the cork of a Hawaiin Punch Rose ’08.

#2: A library with multi-levels and (this is the most important thing) a sliding ladder.

I didn’t mention the third thing in that blog, so it becomes fact #4 about me:

#3: I always dreamed of having a job where I had to order in sandwiches to eat at my desk.

Ah, the romance of work to a child!

Think of all those movies, featuring a Rosalind Russell or a Kate Hepburn exchanging witty barbs while trying to decide who ordered the pastrami on rye.

I get all misty-eyed just saying “pastrami on rye.”

And I didn’t even know what pastrami was!

As an adult, I often get to eat at my desk. Not nearly as glamorous as my childhood vision.

But every now and then, I do feel a little satisfaction, hearing the whisper of Rosalind and the echo of Kate’s bold laugh.

So raise your pastrami on rye in a salute to sandwiches ordered in to eat at the desk!

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Christian Spielbergs and Tolstoys

Some noteworthy moments in blogging:

Don Miller describes the process of writing a novel at his blog.

And Jeff Overstreet rants a bit on his blog; worth reading if for no other reason than this beautiful line:

"If we stop focusing on creating “Christian Spielbergs” we may realize that God is already revealing himself through Spielberg..."

I have mixed feelings about the whole notion of a "Christian" art industry (word in quotes because in this context it does not mean what Christ might think it means); but I have no mixed feelings about artists who are Christians who don't see the value of what is already out there.

They are wasting such time and resources, when they could be furthering the kingdom...

Just my thoughts,

Sean

PS Yeah, I know Tolstoy is a Christian. Just try telling that to Christian bookstores...

Oscar Bites

For those who are still looking for Oscar themed foods, and want to avoid the obvious Indian food, Catherine has these Best Picture suggestions:

A hotdog with a pickle on top. (Bun, dog, a dill in there)

Iced reindeer venison. (Frosted Vixen)

Milkduds -- referring to the slow box office start of a certain nominee.

Alphabet soup. (Okay, an easy out for The Reader.)

Oh, and she wanted to serve stuffed olives, but realized that there would be no pit in there. And Pitt was the only thing good about Benjamin Button.

Clever girl, my wife. I wonder why she was too shy to post these herself?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

And the Oscar Goes To...

My Oscar predictions:

BEST PICTURE: The award will go to THE DARK KNIGHT.

I know what you’re thinking: WALL-E is really the one to beat this year.

And WALL-E is deserving; any other year it would be a shoo-in.

But I still get caught up by them using the live action Fred Willard; it just didn’t work for me.

Whereas in DARK KNIGHT, just about everything worked. The ending was a bit rushed (ironic for a three hour movie), but from acting to technical achievement, screenplay (now here was a story ABOUT something!) to directing, THE DARK KNIGHT is this year’s Oscar…

Hold on a sec, I’m getting an IM from Jeffrey.

What? What do you mean “not nominated?” Is this a joke? Okay, okay…

Sorry about that. So it seems that the Best Picture Oscar goes to WALL-E after all.

Clearly in the running anyway, WALL-E deserves its award for many… Hold on.

Yeah, Jeff? All right, now I know you’re pulling my leg. Okay, what did get nominated? Seriously?... Yeah, Langella was good, but… I suppose we need one politically relevant movie every year, and this is the year of Prop 8, so I guess… What?!! But that movie took four hours and didn’t ever get around to saying anything!... okay, okay.

Again, sorry, I’m back.

The winner is SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Partly for being a very good moive; mostly due to lack of competition in its category.

BEST DIRECTOR: Christopher Nolan. Without a doubt he… what? And Stanton? Arghh!

Oh, I give up.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Outside of a Dog...

Thing I am thankful for this week: books.

My house growing up was jam packed with books.

Our front hall had two walls covered with book shelves made out of old army rifle cases.

Forget about swords into plowshares; I’m all about rifle cases into bookshelves.

The back room had three walls of floor to ceiling shelving. Well, not quite ceiling; but the space between the top of the shelves and the ceiling was crammed with books on their side.

In fact, books were crammed anywhere that had space.

On nights when I couldn’t sleep, I would sneak downstairs and into that back room, pulling off books randomly and reading. If I got bored with a book, I’d stuff it back into the shelf and grab another.

I still can’t get comfortable in bed at night without a book.

When I was a kid, I had three desires that would mark the perfect future.

One was to have a wine cellar, but instead of wine, it would hold bottles of soda. All kinds; all in big glass bottles.

The second was to have a two-story library in my house with a rolling ladder. Like in the movies.

In fact, my favorite scenes in MY FAIR LADY were all in Higgins' study. Not that I cared for where the rain in Spain fell; I just admired the scenery.

So here’s to books – with special thanks to Jack and the gang at my book club for refreshing me with that same childlike wonder.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Oh, title to this post comes from Groucho's quote: "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it is too dark to read."

Figures Don't Lie; But Liars Can Figure

Thanks Jeff for pointing this out and getting me riled.

Let me start by stating my opinion: there should be more family friendly movies out there.

And there definitely should be more Christ-friendly films, and more Christianity-friendly films at our theaters.

However, there are forces out there working diligently to try and convince Hollywood to NOT make family, Christ or Christianity friendly films.

I am speaking, of course, of Ted Baehr and Movie Guide Magazine.

Ted, along with partner Dr. Tom Snyder, recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, outlining why they think Hollywood should make more films that meet Biblical principles.

And by Biblical principles, they mean capitalism, patriotism (only the pro-America kind), faith and values.

I should note that the order of importance in that list is theirs, not mine.

First off, capitalism and pro-Americanism are not Biblical values. I’m not saying they are bad values, as I personally am a patriot who enjoys his paycheck.

They just aren’t Biblical values.

In fact (this will be a surprise to many of you), not only wasn’t Jesus an American, but the USA didn’t even exist when he walked the earth.

Of course, many will point to the verse in Matthew, where Jesus confides to Peter: “I only wish I wasn’t a foreigner. But then again, nobody’s perfect.” But that verse is taken out of context way too often.

Truth be told, it isn’t the if-it-fits-Baehr’s-politics-it-must-be-Christian attitude that bothers me so much as his sloppy math.

Baehr argues that the morally responsible position is this: one should make movies if they make money. (Really? That’s the morally responsible position? Let it go, Sean, let it go…)

To support his argument that his kind of movies are the ones that make money, he points out that the pro-capitalism films of “An American Carol,” “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” City of Ember,” and “Fly Me to the Moon,” took in an average of $71.8 million at the box office.

Pretty impressive.

What he doesn’t tell you is that only one of those four films actually made a profit (“Indiana Jones” made $317 mil; cost $185 mi.); and the other three were box office flops (“Carol” made $7 mil and cost $20 mil; “City” made $7.8 mil, cost $55 mil; and “Fly” made $12.8 mil, cost $25 mil.)

Baehr, in listing the evil pro-communism movies, labels their average of $7.9 million at the box office as “measly.” Even though their average is greater than two of his “pro” flicks.

Even though he had to balance out the wicked “Vicky Christina Barcelona” (made $23 mil) with obscure indie films to bring the average down low enough to justify his thinking.

The article is chock full of bizarre stretches to try and prove his point, both in film content and in math.

Okay, back to my opening opinion.

If it is true that I want more family friendly films out there, why should I care that Baehr is pulling numbers out of his fanny? Aren’t we ultimately on the same side?

I don’t think so.

You see, when Hollywood hears Baehr trumpet his numbers, they don’t take his math at his word. They add the totals up for themselves.

And when they figure out that he is messing with the figures, they assume that it isn’t just his numbers that are funny, but his whole argument, as well as any argument coming from the people that Baehr says he represents.

And Baehr says he represents Christianity.

If Baehr makes himself easily dismissible, then they can just as easily dismiss Overstreet, Nicolosi, Graham, Warren, Brewer, Keller, Gaffney and, well pretty much anyone else that loves Jesus.

Why not, since the number fudging Baehr represents them all, right?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Theology of Story Talk

I am speaking at Beacon, Bel Air Pres’ entertainment fellowship, this Sunday. This time on Storytelling.

The adverts say “The Theology of Storytelling” – but it is mostly my regular lecture on structure and story. It’s just that I pull so much of my creativity models from the guy that created everything, I guess it sounds a lot like a “theology of story” talk.

The group consists of all parts of the entertainment industry: actors, directors, editors, grips, etc.

Should be an interesting time.

Can you tell I’m nervous about it?

If you are free, come and check it out. I like to be heckled by friends.

Here's the advert:

Sunday, February 22, 12:15–2 p.m., Room DC103. Bel Air’s ministry to entertainment professionals. Join us as we discuss The Theology of Storytelling with guest Sean Gaffney. Lunch: $5.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Doctor, Lawyer, Beggar Man, Thief

Things about me #3 of 25:

Ever since I was six or seven, I wanted to be a lawyer.

In grade school, I memorized definitions from “Reader’s Digest You & the Law.”

By Junior High, for fun I would read closing arguments to famous cases.

I even tried pleading the fifth to my mom once. As to how well that worked, apparently there are authorities higher than the Constitution.

Wasn't until college that I dropped that career goal. One of the thrills for me in doing my grad work was the required classes at Columbia Law.

Contract Law; non-profit; real estate. And my favorite: Copyright.

The case of the hamburger shop, Mr. Donalds, with their golden arch (notice the singular) arguing that they never dreamed anyone would confuse them with that operation run by the clown.

Or the adult film that used a certain mouse's club theme song, arguing fair use. (First rule in studying the Supreme Court: the Mouse House rarely loses.)

Or the presidential candidate that claimed using "Don't Worry, Be Happy" without permission wasn't a violation because, well, because that candidate's lawyers weren't very well versed on the law. They shoulda worried more.

Ah, precedent and argumentation, closings and minority opinions, judgments and over ruling -- still gets my heart going a pitter-pat.

Time to come clean: in the "boxer or..." question, I've always been a briefs man.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

I Heart Doctors

What I am thankful for this week: Doctors and nurses.

Off the top of my head, I can think of eight people close to me with medical dealings this week.

One got a no cancer verdict.

One was prescribed ten weeks of meds and a scheduled return.

One was chastised for not following medical instructions.

And one experienced death and resurrection.

A friend, Peter, was having some lower chest pain. After enduring it for a day, he decided to have a doctor check and see if it was heart related.

He did this because he is married, and our wives are smarter than we are.

The doc thought everything looked fine, but suggested he go to the ER to have some blood work done.

At the ER, they put him in a bed, attached a heart monitor, and then, within a few seconds, watched him pass out.

He had a heart attack, there on the bed, with the heart monitor beeping – or rather flatlining – away.

Whereupon the physicians used the paddles and CPR equipment that was sitting right there, and got his heart going again.

Not out long enough for any damage. Dead, sure; but no damage.

He’s fine now, with a stint and a proper blood flow.

So the moral of the story: if you are going to have a heart attack, do it in an emergency room.

On a bed.

With a heart monitor hooked up.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

But I Drink a Little...

Things about me #2 of 25:

I used to have a crush on Ellen Degeneres.

Still do, but as we both are married, I'm starting to lose hope of crush fulfillment.

To see my crush in action, here she is taking a call from Gladys.

Laughed so hard milk came out my nose. And I wasn't even drinking milk.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Aw, Phooey

Things about me #1 of 25:

One Halloween when I was in grade school, I dressed as Hong Kong Phooey.

The homemade costume consisted of a bathrobe and a mask. Didn’t even spring for dog ears or a make-up nose.

Still, I was greatly insulted when at a costume parade, the emcee not only didn’t recognize the costume, but didn’t know the character at all.

Sheesh. Those people had no sense of culture.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

25 Things About Not Listing 25 Things

I've been "tagged" by several folks now to do that "25 Things About You" on Facebook.

For those of you who are faceless out there, the gist is: write out 25 things about you, send it to 25 friends, and have them write 25 things, and send it to their friends, etc.

So I have half a dozen friends that want me to come up with 25 things about myself. What's the protocol here?

Do I come up with one list, and just include all six requesters in my 25 send outs? What if I do that and then tomorrow someone else tags me?

Or am I obligated to come up with 150 things about myself?

Am I self aware enough to come up with 150 things? Or even 25? (Heaven knows I'm self-centered enough to think about me for a long time, but aware enough is the question.)

Do I have time to come up with 150 things, or does my boss expect me to get some work done during company time?

I've found the answers from others to their 25 things to be highly interesting, so I feel a little guilty that I haven't reciprocated. Like listening to public radio without subscribing, or watching the Office on line.

Or nabbing some turkey and mashed from Clint's plate when he got up to use the restroom, then selling it on e-bay.

Not that I do any of that stuff.

So here is my compromise: starting tomorrow, I will list 25 things about me. One per day, giving me time to spread out the assignment. Not necessarily in row, as I'm lazy.

Then I can assuage my Facebook guilt and my blogger guilt with one stone, which I won't throw at a glass house, since I lost this mixed metaphor before I really started it.

Sound fair?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Junk Food and Friends

What I am thankful for this week: Beth Amsbary.

Even though we haven’t chatted in eons, I’ve been thinking of Beth lately because I’ve been recovering from a cold, and coughing a lot.

It’s not the coughing itself that makes me think of her (I don’t associate Beth and phlegm), but because of a piece of folk wisdom* she passed down to me on how to heal from coughing quicker.

And so I think of Beth when I’m hacking out a lung (not breaking a rib, Janet!).

The real reason I’m thankful for Beth, specifically, is the type of friend she represents.

See, Beth and I come from two very different traditions in how we look at life. We could (and did) discuss anything, including the taboo topics of religion and politics.

Here's the key: while we often disagreed, I don’t think we ever fought. We actually discussed; and as a result, I learned a lot.

Let me give you an example in a field more contentious than religion or politics: junk food.

Beth is one of those people that eats healthy, and focuses on natural foods.

I’m the sort that has a second bowl of Cap’n Crunch because I consider the Crunchberries to be a fruit and therefore requiring several servings a day.

For a long while, Beth was trying to get me to consider shopping at Trader Joes, and trying some of the snacks and foods she found there that had more nutritional value than a Dorito/Pop-Tart diet. (But can’t she see that Pop Tarts are fortified?!)

Beth eventually won, not by an intellectual argument or emotional appeal.

She won through action.

On my birthday, I found a present on my desk from Beth: a bag full of groceries. From Trader Joes.

Free food, I will eat; so I sampled many treats. And got a little hooked.

So for garlic hummus and pita chips, chocolate blueberries and Pirate’s Booty, frozen brown rice and turkey meatballs: Beth, I thank you.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

* Here’s the folk wisdom, even though it has nothing to do with the heart of this post: When you cough, it is generally because your body is trying to eject something, or because your throat is irritated. When you are post-cold, and still coughing, the body isn’t trying to get rid of anything, so chances are your throat is irritated.

And chances are your throat is irritated because you are coughing so much. So to stop coughing, you need to, well, stop coughing. So spend a day focusing on resisting coughing, and you get better quicker.

Who Watches Old 70's Government Videos?

I was in 6th grade when our teacher made the whole class watch this film reel. I remember being freaked out, even though I grew up in rural NY, far away from where any costumed vigilante would care to hang out.

I mean, what would a Hangman or Nite Owl do in my part of the woods -- prevent cowtipping?

Looking at it now, it just seems kind of silly. The Jiminy Cricket "I'm No Fool" message stayed with me longer.

What do you think, are we ready to repeal the Keene Act, and let these guys back out of the box?

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Adam's Apple

Don Miller on Apple advertising and being cool.

As for me, with one type at work and one at home, I'm a PC/Apple hybrid.

Not sure if I'm cool, but I get great gas mileage.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Cain, Abel and Black

Here's a Biblical scene from a decidedly unBiblical source: YEAR ONE.

Okay, so the folks here aren't going for Biblical accuracy, but I love that they got some theological accuracy.

Our problem isn't that we too often ask, "G-d, what did I do?"

But rather that we too often ask, "G-d, what do I continue to do?"

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Till We Have Facebooks

Phil Cooke is talking today about Facebook, and how some folks confuse being a Facebook Friend with being a real world friend.

Seen a lot of that sort of thing of late; bloggers focusing on the dangers of Facebook replacing real community, of people using faceless cyber associations as a substitute for spending quality time building real world relationships.

It is a real danger for the many folk that misunderstand the meaning of “friend.”

There are a couple of people in my circle who when they say they are with “friends” mean they are hanging with Quakers.

I bet their Facebook traffic is real quiet.

As for me, the trick to Facebook is to keep this simple point in mind:

Facebook isn’t about friends; it is about the broader circle known as friends and acquaintances.

More to the point: Facebook is Christmas cards.

Sure, you send Christmas cards to the friends you are close to.

But you also send them to those people that you used to be close to, but in truth really aren’t anymore – but with whom it is nice to keep a thread of contact.

And you send them to those people that you aren’t close to, but always meant to get close to, if you had the time or proximity.

Oh, and you send them to the people that you were never close to, but were close to your parents, so ended up on your Christmas card list.

Plus the guys that you were never close to, but met you at that one thing, and you hit it off (you think, the punch at that thing was kind of strong), and they got your address, and so you exchange cards, keeping open the hope that someday closeness might happen.

Which brings up the people that you may have been close to, but honestly can’t remember because try as you might you have no idea who they are (“Honey, are these friends of yours?”) but they sent you a card every year for the past ten years, and now that you are looking at their card (“Honey, do you think we met them as a couple? Look at her, can you guess what her maiden name might have been?”) you realize that you haven’t sent them a card this year and better just in case it turns out that you owe them big time (“Honey, do you think this is the guy that pulled me out of that burning building the night I got drunk at that thing on that strong punch where we met whatshisname?”).

Christmas cards aren’t a bad thing.

It’s nice to have that annual touch – the reminder of times past, the feel good of friendships that once were and remain symbolic of those yet to come, the moment spent focused on another (if only for a moment).

And that is what does the heart the most good – that moment when you focus on another human being: just enough to register the significance of your lives having touched somewhere in the ether of time and space.

And the goodwill that comes of that moment.

Woe to he who replaces real relationship with Christmas Cards; who forsakes time spent in the company of his fellow man, instead settling for words scrawled in haste under a preprinted Joyeux Noel.

But for those that want to spend a moment of their day thinking, “Hey, look: Ceil is reading a story to her daughter. Ah, Ceil. What a sweetheart. I hope that is bringing her joy.”

To that guy, Facebook can be a blessing.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Red Sun Bathroom Light

I was home sick yesterday, so my Thursday thankful is delayed to today.

I am thankful that I have a home to be sick at.

My condo has a few interesting features, but the one I am most struck by: in the bathroom, we have a red lamp that is supposed to generate heat.

It mostly generates red light, but it is kind of retro cool. And if you don’t turn on the regular light, it makes the whole room look weird, all the colors going funky.

Wanna get freaked out? Look at a pepto-bismol bottle under a red light. The label sort of fades out, as the inner glop glows. Freaky.

Sometimes in the comics the villain would shine the light of a red sun onto Superman, thus robbing him of his powers.

I know it works, ‘cuz yesterday I was wearing my Superman t-shirt, and under the light of my red sunlight bathroom heater, the Super insignia turned green.

Which is the color of kryptonite.

Between that and the dayglo of the Pepto, I pretty much lost all of my powers too.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Ask Cory

For a little sneak peak behind the curtains of Hollywood (including what Harvey Weinstein is really like), check out Cory's blog as he takes on frequently asked questions.

The meat isn't in the typical questions ("Why were Red and Woodsman recast in Hoodwinked 2") but in the answering avoiding the superficial, brush-offs (such as the real reason Cory isn't directing H2).

Take a peek inside.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Life as Normal

Janet shares some belated thoughts on the inauguration, and I belatedly share them with you.

I wanted to share this entry not for its in depth analysis, but for its simplicity.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Animal Style, Hold the Muppet

Ever been to a restaurant so elite, that the prices aren’t listed on the menu?

Well, I can do you one better. How about a restaurant so elite, that the food isn’t listed on the menu?

Okay, this isn’t exactly that extreme, but we have a hoity-toity little restaurant on the West Coast called “In–n-Out Burgers.

It has a four item food menu: Hamburger, Cheeseburger, Double, and Fries.

That’s it.

At least for the uninformed, non-elitist non-connoisseur.

There is a secret menu, so one in the know can order a 4 x 4.

Or a Flying Dutchman.

Or my favorite: Animal Style (hold the tomato).

The secret menu has been leaked onto the web (including this older story at Badmouth where the special items have been tested – thank you David for the link), so the club may not be so exclusive.

But we all still look down on our noses at you “no price on the menu” wannabees, in full knowledge that you probably can’t get your foie gras as a “protein style.”

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Thanksgiving Stuffing Part Two

Continued from yesterday:

Which brings me to the important error in the philosophy:

“… and G-d will bless you with boat loads of money.”

Live a life focused on the right things, and G-d will bless you – yes! But be very careful about defining exactly how you will be blessed.

Being blessed with good things and being given money are two very different things.

And hold on to your comments – I am not saying that money is a bad thing. And I am not saying enjoying wealth is a bad thing.

I’m all for having more than enough, and I’m all for enjoying it.

The Bible never says that money is the root of all evil. But it does warn against the love of money.

(“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” – 1 Timothy 6:10)

And the prosperity Gospel is dependent on the love of money – for the giver and the minister propagating it.

It is the longing to have money that motivates the “and he will bless your gift with wealth.”

Not the love of blessing, not the love of God’s goodness – but the love of money.

Look, I know that G-d may choose money as the instrument of blessing for you. But I pray for your sake that money isn’t your main source of blessing.

Let me put it this way: chocolate is good. Enjoying chocolate is good.

Now suppose you get a cut on your leg – gashed it while hopping a rusty fence, taking a short cut through life. So you get on the right path, but you’ve got this injury, so you ask G-d to help out.

And he does, by pouring chocolate syrup into your wound.

A good thing, right? Why not!?! Are you saying that chocolate is bad!?!

Okay, so maybe we can agree that chocolate, while being good, isn’t the right blessing for all things. In fact, chocolate (I can’t believe I’m saying this) isn’t among the major ways G-d blesses.

And money is not among the major ways that G-d blesses.

In fact, G-d will often bless us by denying us money. Any Richard Cory fans – either Robinson or Garfunkle versions?

Here’s the point to this long-winded piece: G-d does not want us to be obsessed with or focused on money.

He doesn’t want us to be looking at him and thinking “sugar daddy.”

He doesn’t want us to think, “rats, I worshipped him and all he gave me was this stupid love relationship, spiritual calm, family healing, joy in my work and my daily bread. What a cheapskate.”

Jesus says this in the sermon on the mount.

He tells us not to worry about money – not because were going to get a lot of it, so don’t worry; but rather because money just plain isn’t important enough to be the pushing out the truly worthwhile things.

So I am grateful for stuff. Not because G-d giving me the resources to have stuff is central, but for the very fact that it is merely a bonus to the many blessings he has already showered on me.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Thanksgiving Stuffing

(In continuing my Thursday Thankfuls, I would like to point out that friend Janet lists 50 things she is thankful for every month. Wowza.)

Today I am thankful for stuff.

Cath and I recently gave away a lot of our stuff in preparation for our move.

What struck me most in that process is that we could afford to give away so much stuff. We have been over-stuffed with stuff, to the point that we didn’t need all that stuff anymore.

Which is a deeply felt reminder of how good G-d is to us, especially in such hard economic times. (Any of y’all watching SECRET MILLIONAIRE?)

The real key to looking at stuff is to know that the blessing of stuff is a side blessing, and not a central blessing.

I’ve been thinking about that since Phil Cooke (The Change Revolution) used the proposed demise of the Prosperity Gospel reign as a conversation starter.

For those of you who aren’t aware, the Prosperity Gospel is the teaching that runs the world of televangelism. The notion goes like this: if you give to G-d, G-d will turn around and bless you with boat loads of money.

There are a lot of scriptures backing up at least the essence of this teaching: G-d does make it clear that he will bless his children.

But I find any preacher or church that focuses on the Prosperity angle to be insidious, primarily for two deviations from Christ-like-ness that they incorporate.

First, every ministry that focuses on Prosperity will tell you that “giving to G-d” means (and only means) giving to that ministry or minister.

Flip the channels and you can easily find a preacher saying, “Send me your checks, and I will pray over them, and G-d will send you wealth.”

You will never find a Prosperity Gospel preacher saying, “Send World Vision or the American Red Cross your checks, and I will pray for you, and G-d will send you wealth.”

In other words, the prosperity Gospel is a fundraising tool with a specific, single function: making money.

Now there are all kinds of justifications for this: ministries need money, the ministry does all kinds of good things, etc.

Fine. Just stop using the word “Gospel,” because it really isn’t good news.

Which brings me to the important error in the philosophy…

To be continued.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Stoned Wisdom

Cath noticed that our new neighbor has one of those polished stones with deep thoughts etched into them at their front door.

She got closer to read the goodly advice:

"Nothing is carved in stone."

That's right.

Wait...

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Chewbacca and the Ground Muppets

Too much to respond to; too much to do in life.

So I'm just going to steal today.

Omar put me on to this video: Star Wars from the perspective of someone who never saw Star Wars.

Good stuff.

Just my tired thoughts,

Sean

Super Thanks

At my lot’s cafeteria, there is a tradition every Thursday: they have a special on a turkey dinner, typically with stuffing, mashed potatoes, veggies and cranberry sauce.

Yes, it is Thanksgiving every Thursday on my lot.

I like that tradition; it brings comfort, all that comfort food.

So I thought I would try that for my blog – every Thursday (or so) it will be Thanksgiving. Let’s see if I can come up with things to be thankful for 52 weeks in a row.

I’m going to start with a thousand words. Here is my godson, up up and awaying in his Superman pj’s.

I know which side of the godfamily he takes after.

Thank you Lord for Eliott – bless him as he grows to be the super man you intend him to be.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Truth and Function

A little more on yesterday’s post on the question of art, fact and truth.

I attended a lecture at Cal Tech led by one of their history professors. (I don’t recall his name – was it Professor Rosenstone? Alas, my notes are packed away. Ignore this lapse of mine, and just be awed that I dropped the name Cal Tech.)

His discussion was on movies – specifically movies based on historical events. As one whose career was in the fact side of the equation, one expected that he would be a stickler for facts in entertainment.

He wasn’t. He did warn of the dangers in supplanting history with entertainment, but he also encouraged artistic license, expressly for the benefit of history.

His argument centered on function: the function of the history book, to record fact; and the function of art, to record essence. Only when both are available – the historical record and the art works – do we have a complete picture of a moment in history.

Let me be clear – he wasn’t advocating twisting facts to the loss of truth; that would be lying. But he was in favor of using artistic license to get at a truth that goes beyond mere knowledge.

I think I get that.

History can only record facts; yet human experience, life itself, can not be contained by facts. So we need more than a list of facts to establish a full reality.

A list of my measurable attributes – height, weight, test scores, census data – would only give you an inkling of who I am.

Start telling stories about me, and we begin to get a fuller picture.

Tell the stories well enough, and you will know me better than just by your intellect.

One may think they understand how small pox was treated in the 1780’s by reading a medical description of the procedure.

But I guarantee, look into Laura Linney’s eyes as she portrays Abigail Adams watching her daughter be sliced by a knife, the pox virus smeared into the wound… Now one begins to really understand what the process meant.

I recall when Taproot Theatre performed TERRA NOVA, the true story of Robert Scott’s tragic bid to discover the South Pole. At intermission during one performance, several patrons complained that we were running the air conditioning too high.

The a/c wasn’t on.

To study Scott’s Antarctic journey is one thing; to feel the biting cold is even more.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

My Mom Thinks All Her Kids Can Walk On Water...

Apparently not all of them can.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Truth and Fact-ion

I joined a discussion over at Christ and Pop Culture; where the author of the blog, David Dunham, was made to wonder about historical accuracy in art by a recent gift of the HBO series JOHN ADAMS.

He mentioned two points that I addressed (you may wish to read the original blog), the first referring to a scene where John Adams upbraids an artist for taking artistic license in his painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. David wonders why the filmmakers would include such a scene, when they themselves took artistic license.

The second point is a question David raises, which I include in the body of my response.

So here is what I had to say:

David,

I would suppose that the makers of the film included that scene precisely to point out the liberties they themselves have taken; a wink to the audience that while portraying history, we should keep in mind that it is a portrayal.

As to your question of “Is it appropriate for us to alter the truth, to change history, to manipulate facts in order to communicate things in a more attractive and memorable way?” I would take issue with the limitations you place on art, the assumption that if facts are manipulated, the only reason would be for attractiveness.

Certainly, many writers or filmmakers take an easy route for such reasons; but the more serious artist might have another reason: to deepen the truth. (Just to be clear about how dangerous I am, let me say: facts and truth are not the same thing.)

In the example of the painting in JOHN ADAMS – the artist could have shown the facts of the setting with 56 separate paintings, and that certainly would have been true. But the artist wanted to show another reality: the unity required by the Continental Congress to pull off this feat.

It was an extraordinary thing – to get all of congress to agree unanimously on such an enormous issue. Unthinkable! Yet somehow it was achieved.

Thus the artist was able to capture a deeper truth with a factual inaccuracy.

At the same time, and this is critical to your discussion, the artist wasn’t attempting to replace the facts. The painting is a DVD extra, a supplement to add to our understanding.

So the Three Kings in art aren’t meant to say there were only three magi, and that they had these specific names, and they were exactly yeah tall – but rather to speak, in artistic terms, to the three aspects of the named gifts. The moment the artist seeks to change a fact in order to replace it, the artist is in error.

But allow me to dig in one step further with this thesis: any and all representations of historical events are by nature not factual.

I will grant you Luke as Gospel Truth; but every painting, staging, song, dance or retelling that followed are interpretations that include “inaccuracies.” Even reading the gospel account out loud creates inaccuracy – the mere emphasis on certain words and lilt of voice create interpretation.

Let’s face it: it is historically inaccurate to cast a man that looks like Paul Giamatti to portray a man that looked like (because he was) John Adams. And when we cling too closely to attempting to be factual, we often become less and less truthful.

I am not in any way saying that facts don’t matter; or that lying is allowed. The artist, like the Christian, is obligated to hold onto truth.

So instead, let us ask: Did Giamatti capture the essence of Adams? Was the true heart of the man given us on screen? Can we add this supplement, this television mini-series, to our history and come up with a more complete view of the man and his times?

More relevant, perhaps, then asking if John Adams really looked like Giamatti.

As Christians, we should safeguard the facts, absolutely. But we shouldn’t limit truth to just the facts.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

Always Start With a Joke

To ease back into writing, I’m just going to steal a joke from Chris:

***
And Jesus said unto them, “And who do you say that I am?”

They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of being, the ontological foundation of our very selfhood revealed.”

And Jesus replied, “What?”
***

Hee hee…

For some pix on our adventure in Hawaii, check out Sarah’s blog.

And I’ll start talking myself soon, now that the ice has been broken.

Just my thoughts,

Sean

A Gaffney Adventure

Sorry for the lack of blog posts.

We started our new year by escaping to Oahu to visit Sean's brother Luke and family.

Check out their blog for photos.  www.gaffneyadventures.blogspot.com

When we get back we'll fill you in on our condo purchase and Cath's new business venture.

So much to share.

Happy 2009!

Aloha.