End Times Part 1- “Left Behind” the recently released movie.

End Times Part 1- “Left Behind” the recently released movie.

This entry is focused solely on reviewing the 2014 film. I will post other entries in the future that will be focused more on my critiques of Christian films as a whole. They might also expound upon the history of Christian films. There is not enough space here for much else besides the review of this particular film.

As always I apologize for my typos and grammatical errors.

I was quite surprised to learn, as both a Christian and a movie lover that a reboot of “Left Behind” (or LB for short) was in the works. The first film, released in 2000, was so inadequate and so universally panned that one of the authors of the books sued the filmmakers to reclaim the rights to the story and characters. But then I was shocked to learn Academy Award winner (and one of my favorite actors) Nicolas Cage was set to star. The budget was set at $16 million. Nothing to sneeze at but I had my doubts as to whether that would be enough to present post-Rapture chaos fully. The Rapture presented here is when all the true Christians of the world disappear in a single moment, plunging the world into chaos.

Let’s cut to the chase. Is this a good movie? No, it’s not. Average? That’s really stretching it. It means well. I was pleasantly surprised by some of the aspects of the film, but I cannot recommend seeing it unless, well, you’re truly open-minded enough to see its few bright spots.

OK, let’s talk about those few bright spots before we move on to the not so bright. In my opinion, the filmmakers made a smart choice when they decided to focus solely on the Rapture and the hours after it. The film isn’t told in “real time” but it comes pretty close. The film’s storylines are based on only the first chunk of the novel. The novel continues past that story- following storylines that occur over weeks and weeks. Major characters are introduced.  But the novel has all the time in the world to tell its story. In my opinion, the novel cannot be adequately adapted within the length of most feature films. The first LB movie covered all the major events of the novel, but it was simply too much story to jam into 96 minutes.  I’m of the opinion that only a well-funded mini-series could depict the entire novel in complete detail. “Band of Brothers” is a good example. Or perhaps the ideal medium would be a television series; similar to the way HBO has adapted George R.R. Martin’s books into the “Game of Thrones” TV series. The Rapture and its immediate aftermath are more than enough to fill up this 110-minute feature film.

I’m not usually a fan of a movie that detours greatly from the source material. For instance, the 2005 film “Left Behind: World at War” is supposedly based on the last chunk of the novel “Left Behind: Tribulation Force.”  And yet it essentially tells a brand new story that bears little resemblance to the source material. But I see the deviations taken in this LB film to be in the best interests of the movie. Expanding the beginning of the novel meant condensing many events while creating new ones in order to flesh out characters and move the plot along quickly. I found many such plot points interesting and useful.

The most surprising aspect was something rare in most Christian films. This film started to paint a truthful view of many Christians, such as their lack of Biblical knowledge (beyond simply quoting the Bible) and their brazen arrogance in the face of non-believers. But the film does not go far enough in my opinion. A major risk needed to be taken- the film should have made a more concentrated effort to expose the idea of believing in God as fraudulent and illogical. The case must be made for denying His existence or at least His holy nature. Much like how American History X manipulated language in support the idea of white supremacy. Its case was presented so well because its manipulation of language was so masterful. One could see how a small group of people might buy into it. It’s terrifying to hear. Such a plot device would make a rebuttal in favor of God (presented later in the film) much more powerful. That is as long as this rebuttal was thoughtfully presented. This film’s rebuttal was weaker than weak. Am I comparing racism with atheism? No. Not in the LEAST. I’m only pointing out how the use of language in films can be used to make any idea make sense. Again, I’m speaking of plot devices.

I found the sets adequate. And the chaos immediately following the rapture was the best I’d see so far even if the budget limited its scope and its special effects (which were really awful at times).

OK, onto some of the major disappointments. By far the most glaring example is the writing. Poor writing is a common issue in just about every Christian film that comes to mind. The script was written by Paul LaLonde and John Patus. LaLonde is a former social worker who has started various film studios dedicated to films about the End Times. He and Patus’s resumes are solely focused on Christian films. Remember when I said that one of the authors of the novel sued the filmmakers of the first movie? LaLonde and Patus were two of those filmmakers. They were involved with writing the original script. Yet somehow they were allowed write the screenplay for the new film as well. That’s just asking for trouble. The script was an improvement over the previous one, but at the end of the day these guys are just not talented writers. The dialogue had almost no subtext to it. No dramatic flair at all. In a word, it was utilitarian at best. Serious and complex plot events do not automatically inspire amazing dialogue.

The writing naturally affects the next disappointment, the acting. Was it good? No. Are the actors solely at fault for that? No. As an actor perhaps I’m too sympathetic, but I felt most of the actors did as good a job as possible with the weak dialogue they were forced to say. Most of the actors are experienced enough to know how to handle themselves. Cage showed honest inner turmoil but even he can only do so much. Though he is the film’s star, most of the focus fell on the shoulders of Cassi Thomson. I believed her emotions, but again she could only do so much. I could tell she has talent. And so the best moments of the film came when the actors were allowed to act without speaking. I can’t imagine the actors were aided very much by director Vic Armstrong, who has almost no background in directing; he’s mostly worked in stunts and second-unit filming.

The next disappointment is also a very common issue in many Christian films- the music. I admit I don’t always pay attention to the film’s music, but that’s because most film scores and soundtracks blend almost effortlessly into the fabric of the film. I recently re-watched “Lawrence of Arabia” and its sweeping score was a great guide through all the numerous events of that film. The music in this film, as in its predecessor, is loud, jarring and distracting. It too lacks subtext. This film's music acts not as a guide but instead as an interruption that weakens an already weak film.

Unlike most of the reviews from critics I’ve read so far, I take no pleasure in criticizing this film. Nor will I expound upon its numerous shortcomings with such overwhelming negativity. This review is already longer than I intended it to be.

Movie-goers, no matter what denomination they belong to (if any), deserve better. Much better. Will movie-goers ever get it? Perhaps. But I think that will only come when the bar for artistic substance in filmmaking exceeds or at least matches that of the story itself. Just making a film inspired by Christian beliefs is not enough. Films demand not just a good story. Films demand a good story told well. Films are art. Art does not come easy.  It’s not automatically part of every film. Audiences demand more. And they have the right so demand such excellence.

But that too is a topic for a future post.

 

 

A Pirate Looks at 10

A Pirate Looks at 10 (years)

On Friday, August 27, 2004 I awoke on an Aero bed on the floor of a one bedroom apartment in Studio City, CA.  The previous day my dad, my best friend Mark and I had arrived after driving all the way from our homes in Jacksonville, FL. OK, Dad joined us in San Antonio but still that’s not bad. Mark and I made the trip in exactly 7 days, travelling over 3,000 miles. I was giving acting a shot.

As luck would have it I-10 (known as Interstate 10 in Jax, The 10 in LA) started a short distance from my parents’ house in the Ortega neighborhood of Jacksonville (the Westside is the best side).

The journey got off on a bad note. Stopping at JAX Navy Federal Credit Union off Roosevelt Blvd, I discovered to my horror that I had misplaced my ATM card. So I did what any college graduate would’ve done. I drove back to my parents’ house to hit my Dad up for some money. He also handed me my green comforter. Even with care and cleaning that comforter finally got thrown away some time in 2013. What can I say, I’m a pack rat.

Sadly right before we left my computer’s hard drive had been damaged and all the mp3’s I had were lost forever. I was left with whatever had been burned onto my many CD’s. I figured this was for the best. If I’d never bothered to put any of those other songs on CD they must not have been very good songs. But back in the day they were free and no one felt particularly bad about not paying. It was all about volume. So I went to either a Borders (RIP) or a B&N and bought 5 or 6 CDs, mostly Greatest Hits albums. At the checkout the clerk looked down, then looked at me and said, “Road trip?”

I packed as light as I could. There was said Aero bed, a large suitcase, a smaller gym bag with clothes for the trip, a box of glassware that my new brother in law JP had insisted I take, and my small TV with built in VHS. Yes, I said VHS. Mark and I were outfitted with walkie-talkies and deemed ourselves ready for travel.

Mark, being smarter and more organized, kept a “Captain’s Log” of the trip of which I will sometime post a sanitized transcript version of on here. As I recall it was an old fashioned tape deck. Oldie but a goodie. I was driving my 2003 Honda Accord, “champagne” colored and named Thelma after my grandmother. Before leaving I made sure they put a tape deck back in the car even though they had been discontinued by that point. Look, all my many audiobooks were on cassette so get off my back. :-) 

The trip itself is worthy of a separate entry but here are a few high points. The first day we were so pumped up that we drove all the way to Beaumont, TX and its lovely Best Western. We stopped to see Mark’s grandmother who fed us peanut butter sandwiches and told Mark to follow his dreams. I got no such advice so I’m stealing his. We split up briefly in TX and reconnected to pick up my Dad who was flying into San Antonio to join for the rest of the trip. He made known his dislike of Coldplay and put my new Best of Bruce Springsteen CD on continuous loop until even I had to ask to listen to something else. I’m not proud of that. We stopped at Carlsbad Caverns (The Bats!), The Grand Canyon, and Tombstone, AZ (complete with OK Corral reenactment) to name just a few. We also, at my insistence, drove an hour or so out of our way to briefly visit the Tanque Verde Ranch near Tucson. The reason? It’s where they filmed “Hey Dude” my favorite childhood TV show. We didn’t know this at the time but what few buildings remained were actually a mile or so away from the actual ranch. But we spent a few minutes walking around the pool and corral area. It was worth it.

We awoke on the 26^th at the Grand Canyon and drove into sunny California. Through a college buddy of mine we had already lined up an apartment which was a huge blessing. Of course we had no idea what it would look like but good ole’ #110 at Bluffside Gardens served us well, even if we didn’t yet have a fridge. We made our first Ralphs run, got take-out from a place called Fat Jack’s (RIP) and watched Swingers. My dad’s reaction, “Bud, I’d be thrilled if you were Goofy.”

We did some sightseeing: Hollywood & Highland (where I complained about all the tourists), a tour of the Sony lot and several more trips to Ralphs. We watched Ocean’s 11 and Wild Bill. I remember driving through my new neighborhood listening to Woody Nelson and Ray Charles’ duet of “Seven Spanish Angels,”  Elton John’s “I Guess That’s Why They Call it the Blues” and James Patterson’s audiobook of “Kiss the Girls” read by Robert Guillaume and Chris Noth.  Funny how random things like that come back to you.

So I awoke today in my condo in Van Nuys, nursing a double ear infection and blissfully happy because it didn’t really flare up until after I’d filmed a scene for “Criminal Minds” on Monday. Yesterday, the anniversary of my arrival, I drove past Bluffside Gardens and snapped a few pictures. Even went to the same Ralphs. All in my Hyundai Elantra named Carl after my grandfather (Husband of Thelma). Today there will be a few more brief stops.

Are there most personal, heartfelt memories from this life changing trip? There are many, but they’re all mine. Sorry.

 

Mark took a picture of the sunrise at The Grand Canyon on the morning of the 26th. Driving home from set on Monday I had to pull over and snap a picture as the sun started to set.

 

Sunrise. Sunset.

I always told myself if I made it to 10 years I’d give a good hard look at what I wanted to do next and where I wanted to do it.

My conclusion? I’m staying. It’s time to begin Phase 2.

Ben

August 27, 2014

Film Review: Some Girl(s)

I first saw Neil Labute’s “Some Girl(s)” when it was performed in Los Angeles.  I was pleasantly surprised when I heard it was being turned into a movie.  It stars Adam Brody, Jennifer Morrison, Mia Maestro, Emily Watson, Zoe Kazan and Kristen Bell.

In short, the film is about a nameless male writer on the verge of getting married (called Guy in the play, Man in the movie) who has decided to tour the country visiting old girlfriends. Each new girl visits his hotel room and in short order we hear about this particular couples’ past.  Constricting the action to a series of innocuous hotel rooms helps to focus the audience’s attention when performed live. The hotel room is essentially repeated almost exactly the same in Los Angeles as it is in Boston. The filmmakers made the interesting decision to set each scene in hotel rooms as unique as the women who come to visit them. I found such sets distracting at first but ultimately helpful in separating not only who these girls are but also who they were for Man. Still the film lacked the pace needed to fully keep your attention. How this would have been corrected I cannot say except to float the idea of giving each new scene a new director (in a Four Rooms kind of way) to provide more twists and turns to get the material moving.

The film works on the strength of the performances and less on the writing. No one can deny LaBute’s talent so I wonder if he purposefully underwrote this one. As the title says this is a play about some girls but the lack of real insight into the single male characters left me a little confused. There were a few dialogue changes in the script’s journey from stage to screen and I can’t help but wonder if there should’ve been a few more.  The idea behind the film is intriguing but with no one to “root” for you quickly lose interest. With each new scene hopes of deeper clarity and greater understanding go unrequited. And yet, you want to keep watching. I found myself wondering if there were moments I was missing and I feel confident that there are at least a few. By the end of the film you do gain some insight into the Man’s purpose for this journey but purpose does not equal depth. The ending is almost tossed away. That being said the addition of a new “girl” not previously seen in the play provides some of the best acting and dramatic moments of the entire film.

The casting of Brody is most interesting since his natural sweetness and charm prevent you from ever deciding on a clear interpretation of who he is when confronted with the things he has done in his past.  Perhaps you wonder if deep down he really is who he is apparently trying so hard to be.  Would it have been better to have cast an actor whose lack of gravitas made our feelings about his character easier to crystalize? Perhaps, but I tend to prefer bolder, more complex casting choices even at the risk of overall satisfaction in the general sense of the word.

In short, the film does not deliver the way I’d like it to, but part of me didn’t care. I got what I was prepared for and the things I didn’t like had nothing to do with the actors. Some Girl(s) may indeed be more endearing to us drama nerds than to the general public but films like this aren’t made to stand toe to toe with Oscar winning projects. Perhaps it’s best to view watching it as you would watching the play, that is you take a brief part of your night to watch everyday people try their best to communicate with each other- that most basic and yet difficult task for us all.

The Oscars 2014

I am hard pressed to remember a year where there was such competition and uncertainty going into Oscars weekend. Best Picture might just be determined by picking a name out of a hat. Though it makes predicting harder, and thus less fun, I'm all for knowing that there will be actual reasons to tune in.

As before I'll try and keep things brief by stating who I believe will win, should win, might spoil and should've been nominated at least.

Best Picture:
Will Win- 12 Years a Slave.
Should Win-Gravity.
Might Spoil- American Hustle
Overlooked-All is Lost

Best Director:
Will Win- Alfonso Cuaron or Steve McQueen
Should Win- Alfonso Cuaron
Might Spoil- David O. Russell
Overlooked- Jean-Marc Vallée (Dallas Buyers Club)

Best Actor:
Will Win- Matthew McConaughey
Should Win- Matthew McConaughey
Might Spoil- Chiwetel Ejiofor (but he won't)
Overlooked- Robert Redford (All Is Lost)

Best Actress:
Will Win- Cate Blanchett
Should Win- Sandra Bullock
Might Spoil- Amy Adams
Overlooked- Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks)

Best Supporting Actor:
Will Win- Jared Leto
Should Win- Jared Leto
Might Spoil- Michael Fassbender (but he won't)
Overlooked- Nothing jumps out at me here but as always I wasn't able to see everything I wanted to see

Best Supporting Actress:
Will Win- Lupita Nyong'o
Should Win- Lupita Nyong'o
Might Spoil- Jennifer Lawrence
Overlooked- Jennifer Garner (Dallas Buyers Club)

Best Original Screenplay:
Will Win- Her
Should Win- Her
Might Spoil- American Hustle
Overlooked- All Is Lost

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Will Win- 12 Years a Slave
Should Win- Wolf of Wall Street
Might Spoil- can't think of any
Overlooked- a small shout out to The Great Gatsby wouldn't have been unwarranted.

Want more?  I'm mostly going with Entertainment Weekly's picks for the rest of the categories for my own pools.

Go get 'em Ellen!

Addiction- A Brief Word

I don’t know the details of Mr. Hoffman’s death or personal life so I can’t comment on any of that. But here’s what I can say about my feeling on the large issue of addiction.

When Kurt Cobain killed himself I was only recently a teenager. He had escaped from a rehab center and killed himself in his home. But when the news hit I felt neither shock nor sadness. I felt angry. I considered snapping my “Nevermind” CD but couldn’t bring myself to do it. I still threw it away. I hadn’t matured much more when Chris Farley died. Again, anger. I remember thinking, “I guess we just can’t have heroes anymore.”

What can I say except that I was acting like a jerk.

I knew nothing of addiction. I haven’t become an expert but I have seen more of it. We all have. And yet there is still the inclination to look down on those who do drugs, or alcohol, or anything to extreme degrees.  We say, “What is wrong these people?! Why don’t they just stop? These deaths would be entirely avoidable. I’d never be like that!”  Several years ago I read a fictional story of a wealthy man so fed up with drug users that he spent a good deal of his fortune to poison some drugs before they were sold to users. Deaths would increase so in response people would quit using out of certain death. It didn’t work. The deaths continued to pile up even after the story broke. People kept using. He didn’t get it.  Too many of us think “Oh that will never be me.”

No so fast. Addiction can happened to anyone about anything, even good things. People get addicted to exercise for example. If that make too much since to you then consider Quinn Pitcock. Never heard of him you say? Not surprising. Pitcock was a professional football player drafted in the 3^rd round by the Colts. He actually retired for a brief while but when he attempted a comeback, his addiction ruined his chance. The culprit? “Call of Duty." That’s a video game. At one point he was playing 18 hours a day.

Addiction is a physical problem because it can change the way the brain operates which in turn affects our entire body. It is a mental problem and we have been awful at trying deal with mental diseases. It’s not something that be turned on and off like a light switch. First we as a people need to change our perception of drug users. Dismissing them only leads to more using as they try and deal with that pain. Users cannot be put into general prisons, left to go through painful detox on cold cell floors surrounded by prison staff that couldn’t help the inmates even if they wanted to.  They are corrections officers not drug counselors.  The battle inside an addict’s brain must be changed and that takes time. Prevention is the best way but when addictions threaten the user or puts others at risk incarceration does nothing. Rehabilitation can do everything

Mr. Hoffman was a brilliant actor. I’m not angry at him. He had a neurological disorder and until we see addiction for what it is this will get happening.  Is his death our fault? Of course not but it’s the addiction culture that we are letting down.

I wish I knew more. Perhaps what I’ve written is way off the mark. I didn’t spend hours researching it; I just booted up my computer and started writing.

 In the future I sure hope I take the time to learn what I can. I just may have to counsel someone someday, even if all I can do is take the time to truly listen to their story.

Really listen.

 

The God Who Wasn't There- Film Review

 

 

Recently on the advice of someone whose opinion I greatly respect, I watched Brian Fleming’s “The God Who Wasn’t There.”   The film is right at an hour long and can be viewed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE4qzFDCyCE            

Firstly, hats off to Fleming for attempting a very daunting task in a very short amount of time. Although the compressed time frame did not help prove his case beyond all doubt, there is plenty of content worth discussing.

Let me start by saying that I am no theologian or professional researcher. I will do my upmost to not babble on since this is by means a complete review. What I am is a believer who wants to expand his knowledge of faith by studying the objections of atheists. Knowledge is power.

I will start with brief overall impression of the film. Then I will address the worthwhile issues raised followed by a few of the mistakes the film makes. This is not an exhaustive list. I plan on posting a 2^nd entry to address a few more mistakes.

                           

Fleming’s story is a common one. As the old saying goes, “The Single Greatest Cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians.”  In a nutshell Fleming was brought up in the faith but it is obvious the presentation of the life and teachings of Christ he was subjected to growing up did more harm than good.  The reason why teaching the Gospel of Christ is more difficult than it should be is that we as humans take it, put our own spin on it and pass it off as our own.  This is something I come across often- people don’t have a proper view of Christ because they weren’t taught one.  They take a negative view or outright deny the existence of God based on the so called “Christians” they have come across. Perhaps there is not enough talk of everyone being a sinner in need of grace. People love to talk about themselves and condemn others, just like the Pharisees. It is so easy then for the Gospel to be preached in a vague, general sense that is short on specifics and runs away from dialogue and debate.

Teaching the Bible and the story of Christ to educated adults can be difficult but teaching it to young and impressionable children is an exercise that must be done carefully.  Too often churches will resort to the “shock and awe” method, telling kids of all the miraculous (i.e. supernatural) things God has done. Or they may decide to simply scare kids into coming into the faith with threats of damnation.   It is easy to incorrectly imply that unless one is consistently experiencing radical physical, mental and emotion transformations or revelations, one is not truly communing with God.  Of course often times those things do happen, especially at the moment of conversion, but a personal relationship with Christ starts as a result and it is that relationship that sustains us. These amazing experiences may occur again and again, or they may not. Regardless, after the shock and awe end, the teaching should begin. Teaching should not consist of handing out a list of rules and leaving it at that. Or shoving a bible in someone’s hand and walking away, assuming everything will be fine. But instead it is essential to proceed with a slow, methodical, in depth process that explains the history and spiritual significances.  Yes, including scientific teachings. I fear this kind of real teaching doesn’t happen much, to children or adults. Maybe it didn’t happen to Fleming? If he didn’t receive biblical teaching in such a way perhaps that led to where he is today? I don’t know.

It’s clear from the beginning that perhaps Fleming’s main issue deals with Christians and Christianity and not with Christ and his heavenly father, God.  It might be the claim that after Jesus’s time Christians distorted and changed his story. They certainly twisted it for their own gain (the Crusades, the Inquisition, hello?) but studying the scriptures will show that is not how Christ wanted his people to treat others. I think that makes the title of the film a bit misleading but that’s only an opinion.

If Fleming has an issue with Christians he’ll have to get in line behind me before he can speak his peace.  People who call themselves Christians have been responsible for blasphemy and false teachings for centuries. However such actions are not limited to Christians only. Far from it. Human beings are flawed creatures. Again, the point and focus must be on Christ and NOT on his sinful, prideful, selfish and often misguided followers.

I applaud Fleming for pointing out the obvious fact that few Christians know the history of the Gospel in the context of the overall history of mankind.   They read the Bible, they learn and preach it but rarely do they look deeper.  It is not a prerequisite for salvation but if people are not keenly aware of certain objections, guys like Fleming will make them look like mindless zombies, members of a cult spending their lives in a perpetual haze.  Christians have been and will continue to be wrong or ignorant of certain facts but luckily they have put their faith in God who has all the answers and is never wrong.

Point of Order: I thought it had become almost common knowledge that Christ was NOT born on December 25^th but most likely in the springtime. In part December 25^th was chosen to correspond with the Roman holiday of Saturnalia (among other winter solstice holidays) as a way to ease new believers into the fold. Would changing the date help? I don’t know. I think there are more important issues to study.

                                                                                                                                                                               

The best thing about the film:

I thank Fleming for pointing out the fact that the history of how the gospel was spread after Christ’s death is not well known to many Christians- at least not the whopping 3 he interviewed. But in all honesty it’s an area I myself need to expand my knowledge of. Luckily you don’t have to pass a test to receive salvation. All thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. But there is no reason for Christians to remain ignorant to the claims this film makes and the responses they are entitled to give.

Yes, we are to live by faith but the tradition of anti-intellectualism in the church has done and will continue to do great harm to its members and by extension the world.

 

Now for my biggest objections to the film:

1.       Which historical figures does Fleming list as top examples of the face of Christianity? Charles Manson and David Koresh.  Even a minimal amount of Biblical knowledge would clearly show these guys as evil egomaniacs who do not live a spirit-filled life. They decided to worship themselves. The type of false prophets/teachers Christ warned about. Makes sense, it’s very easy to dismiss people. God on the other hand… He also kindly referred to the Branch Dividians as “crispy.” 

2.       About 14 minutes in Fleming states the “fact” that after Jesus died everyone “forgot” about his story “and then remembered.”  I’ve been going to church off and on almost my whole life and I’ve never heard that. The Apostles travelled far and wide telling the story of Christ and his teachings starting right after his death. The writing and publishing of the Gospels and the writings of the Apostle Paul are massive enough subjects to be mentioned in their own future posting, probably by someone more learned than I am.

3.       Next he asks a few random Christians if they know anything about a few mythical beings that supposedly share qualities with Christ. The Christians are pretty clueless. First off these are mythical beings, not historical. Among the mythical beings Flemings mentions as being like Jesus are:

Dionysus- either a god or a half god who was conceived by the god Zeus either by Zeus’s lightning bolts, his placing Dionysus’s physical heart in the womb of his mother, his becoming a snake, or his becoming a human. The identity of his mother is disputed. Some say Semele. Others say Persephone.  In either case his mother did not give birth to him, he was born out of Zeus’s physical thigh. Zeus was far from a virgin. So called similar titles given to both Christ and Dionysus don’t match up. There are other examples as well. I will say that Dionysus was said to have been raised from the dead. However I was only able to find a few mentions of this event and all were brief and short on specifics such as the names of witnesses.

Osiris/Horace- Egyptian deity.  Can’t even decipher if these were two separate beings or one. “He” was conceived by either a galaxy of stars or a non-virgin mother along with a father whose identity is disputed. Supposedly he was crucified but there is no evidence the ancient Egyptian practiced such a method.

Mithras- Roman or Persian god.  Born from a rock (not a human).  Earliest evidence of his existence comes from ancient sculptures. There are no known complete writings from the age he supposedly lived in, only sparse fragments. He’s a being who was not widely known until the publication of a book in the 1800s. Very little has been written about him and those few writings list no consistent claims of a virgin birth, crucifixion, etc. He supposedly rose from the dead from a rock (just as in his birth). I DID find an article that said he has been widely known as “the son of god” so there’s one similarity.

In case you were wondering if he does any such “man on the street” interviews with your average atheist, he doesn’t. He asks well known scholars instead. Odd. There are a plethora of Christian scholars he could have interviewed. He chooses not to.

 

4.       About 23 minutes in a rather odd statement is made about an “official position” of the church that exists to this day. This is concerning early pagan objections to the description of Jesus as being too close to the pagan mythological figures listed above. The church simply stated, “Oh, well, this one is true. Satan counterfeited those others in advance in order to cast doubt on Christ.”  I have never heard such an “official statement” but again, teachings on this subject rarely occur. Therefore, I can’t say it has never been said. So that’s not an objection perhaps but a case of Fleming boldly stating a fact and not mentioning where it can from.

5.       At around 33 minutes in, he shows a very old video of some guy named Bailey Smith (whom I’ve never heard of) spouting outright blasphemy that God does not listen to the prayers of people such as Jews. First off, this is biblically incorrect, God hears all prayers. Secondly, who is this guy and why is this video footage so old? Couldn’t Fleming find some contemporary video? In all honesty, I bet there are a few poor individuals who currently proclaim that crap. These are the words of a sinful man, not of Christ the son of God.

6.       Yes myths can become considered fact, but one must concede that if the belief in God can be a myth so too can the belief that there is no God. Perhaps this is what happened to the Council of Nicea? This too is a massive enough subject for a future posting.

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading and I believe there’s a way to leave comments on here.     

As I said, I plan on future entries to address certain subjects in depth that were only briefly mentioned here.

Keep asking questions of each other everyone. Debate. Discuss. Listen!

Ben

For documentation purposes here are a few of the resources I used for the discussions on the mythical figures.

 “Mythology” by Edith Hamilton (I still had my copy from 7^th grade Latin class)

               http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html (comparing Jesus to mythical gods)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Birth

         http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/

                          http://www.tektonics.org/                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                     

Ben's Oscar Picks 2013

The Oscars really snuck up on me this year, I guess I'm still not used to them being in February.  I plan on breaking down my favorites films in a future posting so I'll try to keep this one brief.  As usual I break it down as to what I think WILL win and what I think SHOULD win and yes it's not always different!  But don't fret, this year I'm adding something new- overlooked nominations!  Not saying they should win, not a nomination was in order.

Best Picture:  WILL win: Argo     SHOULD win: Argo     Overlooked: The Dark Knight Rises/The Avengers/Skyfall
OK so I'm not starting off with a standoff... but I will say it was beyond refreshing to see two comic book movies and a Bond flick be done so well.  With expanded nominations one of them should have gotten in.  I'd give up Django Unchained's spot if it were up to me.

Best Director:   WILL win: Steven Spielberg     SHOULD win: David O. Russell     Overlooked: Ben Affleck for Argo, Juan Antonio Bayona for The Impossible
I can't say that Spielberg doesn't deserve it, he does, but David O. Russell created an incredible movie which is highlighted by being he first film in decades to get nominations in all 4 acting categories.  The Impossible may be the most overlooked film of the year, it's hard to imagine a more difficult project to undertake. True, Bigelow being overlooked for Zero Dark Thirty is beyond shocking but she just won so I think she'll survive just fine. And Affleck, duh.

Best Actor:     WILL win: Daniel Day Lewis     SHOULD win: Hugh Jackman     Overlooked: Ben Affleck for Argo, John Hawkes for The Sessions
Overlooking Affleck is understandable here but as someone who wrote him off years ago I'm happy to say I was wrong.  As I said above, I can't say that Daniel Day Lewis doesn't deserve it, he does, but as Jean Valjean Jackman got to experience EVERY emotion known to man and knocked each one out of the park. But musicals get Best Supporting nods if anything at all.  I think Mr. Phoenix swooped in and grabbed Mr. Hawke's nomination which is too bad. Hawkes portrayed a nearly paralyzed polio victim with only his face as a tool and made it look easy.

Best Actress:     WILL win: Jessica Chastain     SHOULD win: Naomi Watts     Overlooked: Noomi Rapace in Prometheus
An old Oscar rule I have is when things look pretty even, go with the more political/socially important film- hence Chastain.  I will say she had the tough job of somewhere conveying a wealth of emotions without being allowed to express any of them.  Watts however, as a desperate mother/wife separated from her family following the sudden 2004 Tsunami played every second of screen time with such force that its a shame she's not even being considered.  Actually the word "sudden" is not even close to being adequate.  Rapace is a stretch here for sure but whenever she was on screen I was simply mesmerized by her.  She too showed great range, but when its on an Alien planet the Academy rarely notices.

Best Supp. Actor:     WILL win: Tommy Lee Jones     SHOULD win: Robert DeNiro  Overlooked: Ewan McGregor for The Impossible
Lincoln probably has enough power to give the Oscar to Jones for the second time though DeNiro certainly gives a wonderful performance as a father trying to help his bipolar adult son start his life over.  Waltz is also a possible spoiler thanks to his win at the Golden Globes but it might just be too soon after winning for Inglorious Basterds. McGregor didn't get as much screen time in The Impossible as Watts but his search as a husband/father is no less gripping.  16 year old Tom Holland was remarkable in that movie as well.  I'm one of the few that is OK with DiCaprio being overlooked.

Best Supp. Actress:     WILL win: Anne Hathaway     SHOULD win: Anne Hathaway     Overlooked: here's the only place I'll put in a name for a film I haven't seen but everyone so raved about Maggie Smith in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" that I was very shocked to see her overlooked. Or maybe it's just because I've been watching a lot of Downton Abbey lately.  Samantha Banks deserved a nod too but they weren't going to nominate two actresses from the same film and since Hathaway is the biggest lock of them all, Banks takes a back seat.

Screenplays are really hard to say this year but Adapted Screenplay just might be the only shot for Silver Linings Playbook to walk away with anything this year (which is a real shame).  Argo is the safe choice here I guess.  As for Original Screenplay I simply have no idea. If I absolutely had to say, I guess the safe choice would be either Tarantino or Boal though I'd like to see John Gatins win for Flight, another almost-casualty this year.

Here's hoping Skyfall becomes walks away with Best Song. Adele is soooooo good.

I'd give Amour good odds at Best Foreign Film.  Beyond that its hard to say so I'm not gonna.

Enjoy the show!

-Ben

An Attempt at the Big Picture

I too was upset over the Chik Fila story- until I actually read the statement and the follow up conciliatory clarification (see below). I personally know people who work for Chik Fila. People who would never discriminate or hate anyone for any reason.  Each franchise has a separate owner so one person’s views don’t speak for all. I agree with these recent statements of tolerance and respect so I guess I’ll have protestors outside my home now?  Ask around- I don’t hate anyone. Many people I care about are gay and I love them all and if anyone voiced actual messages of hate I’d be happy to protest against them in support of my loved ones.  I admire people who stand up for what they believe.  I’m for separation of church and state. I’m for free speech.  I’m for tolerance.  It appears that makes me some kind of monster.  If you chose to express yourself but not eating a chicken sandwich, there’s no judgment here from me- good for you I say. I pray for all people on both “sides” of this “event” which has sadly drawn our attention away from the governmental and political debate over this issue which needs to be the focus.  Please don’t jump the gun, anyone on any side, before getting the facts.  I hope against feelings of superiority anyone from any side may have on this event. #HateIsPoison.

http://www.dennyburk.com/chick-fil-a-and-the-irony-of-the-tolerance-police/

"Blue Like Jazz"

When I first heard Don Miller's semi-autobiographical faith journey "Blue Like Jazz" was being turned into a movie, I was shocked. How? By Who? Then I forgot about it until a member of my weekly bible study invited people to come see it at a theater in Burbank. And I thought, "Why not?"

   At first I was just happy when more people joined my friend Mike and me in the theater. Then I was happy when 4 more of our church friends showed up. I decided that was a good omen. Having not read the book in about 3 years (and having never read Miller's "A Million Miles in a Thousand Years" which told the story of how he adapted "Blue" into a screenplay) I didn't remember enough to accurately critique its adaptation (which is a favorite hobby of mine) but in effect, that allowed me to sit back and take them film as it came at me.

    As usual a bit of backstory courtesy mainly of Wikipedia. Director Steven Taylor was struggling to fund the film when Miller blogged about it. In response some readers set out to raise funds through Kickstarter. Slightly doubtful at his chances, Taylor agreed to personally call any backer who donated more than $10 once funding exceeded $125,000. $345,992 ended up being raised. One of the original donors took that as a good sign and upped their initial ante. Thus Taylor ended up shooting the film for $750,000 with a post-production budget of $500,000. And yes, thought it took around a year and a half, word is Taylor did call each donor- and the credits for the film list a very long list of "producers."


    Even though I just saw it last night, I am having a hard time articulating my views on the film past saying that I liked it. It was an important step in Faith-based films for sure just as last years "Courageous" was as well. It was well acted, thanks to performances by Prison Break's Marshall Allman, LOST's Tania Raymonde and The Vampire Diaries' Claire Holt and a supporting cast who all had to tackle extremely difficult subject matter. I applaud it for putting forward tough questions and not shying away from showing that people of faith can make mistakes and end up growing because of it. I also found the film to be fair in its depiction of un-believers, not simply non-Christians but atheists and agnostics. However the focus of the film is not on these groups, but on Miller's journey from small town Texas Christian to liberal Reed College student. We see Miller at odds with the perceived failures of his faith, anger over the hypocrisy of its adherents and relatable objections voiced by non-believers. Truly knowledge is power and Miller got more than he ever bargained for.


    I will be interested in whatever positive points critics will have to say about the film. There will be negative ones to be certain, many of them probably justified, but I think we as a movie going public like the idea of an underdog, independent movie with a risky message that is willing to put itself out there, flaws and all, for the world to see. www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOglQgyxYkI Check out the trailer on YouTube.

My Top Ten Films of 2011

Honorable Mentions: The Girl With the Dragoon Tattoo, Puss N Boots, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, X Men, Bridesmaids.
Did Not Care For: Iron Lady, Hugo, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,

Most Overlooked film of the year: Melancholia

Best Performance in a movie I didn't overly care for: Sandra Bullock in "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" who in one scene
was able to bring an entire film to a screeching holt and remind us she is actually is very talented.

Overlooked for recognition: Andy Serkis, Albert Brooks

And Now Here We Go!
10. Beginners

No, it's NOT just because my friend Rafael Noble is in it. It's actually because the movie was simply a delight to watch and I was reminded once again that Ewan McGregor is one of the most underappreciated actors around. Mr Plummer is a shoe in for his first Oscar to boot. I won't take up any more space here- the movie is a delight and kept me invested the whole time.


9. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Wha???? Yes, it's true. Toy Story's Brad Bird put together what was possibly my favorite all around movie going experience of the year. In IMAX this movie grabbed me and never let go. It is possible for action movies to not just be entertaining but well rounded in all areas. Techincal arts are shone to be truly artistic.

8. The Help

Yeah, I paused the DVD once or twice because I got a little teary-eyed. Even now I have a hard time pinpointing all of what I liked. It comes down to this- 1) when I need to pause during a movie to consider what is happening and 2) feel an overwhelming sense of contentment in what I've just watched when the credits roll = a film that deserves to be rewarded.

7. The Descendants

Yes, its at #7. I liked this movie, I liked it a lot. Quite possibly George Clooney's best work so far. I love Alexander Payne and it boasted a great cast all the way down. BUT, I didn't love it and that's just me.

6. My Week With Marilyn

I once again send apologies to Michelle Williams for ever having doubted her. She converted me last year in "Blue Valentine" and here we are again with me touting her as my "Should Win but Won't Win" Award of the Year. Though far from revolutionary the film is solid, thanks to a tried and true storytelling style and the likes of Kenneth Branaugh and Judi Dench. It made me want to go out and watch some of Marilyn's own films and gave me a boost as I begin watching TV's "Smash"

5. Warrior

My most recently viewed film that made this list. Although between the trailer and the first 10 minutes of the film there would seem little to be surprised by, I was still quite often surprised. I applaud the casting of lesser known actors to portray extremely and precisely drawn characters. I love seeing Nick Nolte in his element. A few hiccups here and there are gladly overlooked as we allow ourselves to be once again inspired and rejuvenated.


4. Melancholia

Just my opinion but I'd venture to say poor "Melancholia" got K.O.'d by Malick's "Tree of Life." Perhaps yearly there is only ever room for one Arty/Internal/Non linier/untraditional/ and perhaps just a tad of simply-weird-for-the-sake-of-being-weird film this year. It's too bad. Kirsten Dunst converted me (like Michelle Williams did last year) through her powerful and raw portrayal of a young woman gripped by depression. But alongside her internal struggle, Dunst's character also manages to outwardly become the model of calm when outside forces threaten all that is around her. The two sides to the film play out like the beautiful music the accompanies the action. Dunst is in good company as Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kiefer Sutherland deliver award worthy performances. I am too much of a neophyte to comment more on a film such as this (Or Tree of Life for that matter) and I am equally lacking in knowledge of filmmaker Lars von Trier, so I will close by commending this excellent film and wishing it had gotten more praise that it so obviously deserved.

3. Moneyball

No, its not just because Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, though I'm sure that helped a ton to mold the movie into what it is. I am doing my own part to congratulate this film for being the type of movie that rarely gets made and rarely gets enough acclaim. That is the straight-forward, no frills, so amazing that it has to be true film that somehow gets made by a studio. The word solid doesn't have enough zing but it fits because its almost impossible to see chips in the film's armor. It won't win much because its just not quite "arty" enough but 50 years from now but just be the most admired film from this year. Plus, I still can't get that song out of my head.

2. The Artist

I admit I had pretty much decided I was going to like this movie before I saw it but I had no idea how much. It didn't blow my mind but it was as well done a movie as I have seen in a long time. It transports you back to Hollywood's Golden Age but it holds your hand by somehow encouraging you to see the 1920s through 2012 eyes. The film never loses its modern flair even as it reminds us not only of an era gone by but also of moviemaking techniques that would do us all well to learn about. It's not that it just took risks, it took them, broke them and did so without ego or shoving it down our throats. It's most powerful moments equaled the most powerful moments in film this year.

1. Midnight In Paris

Yep, Woody Allen still has it. In fact he's so good he made me a fan of Owen Wilson for 90 minutes which I did not see coming (I don't have anything against Wilson but had gone into the film doubting his casting). Allen can make a well done story in his sleep but he does so much more here. Even if you're only half the hopeless dreamer I am, I bet you still saw yourself in the main character as he encounters the ideal life he thought he wanted- hobnobbing with artistic giants in the City of Lights during a period of (seemingly) unprecedented creativity. Allen allows us to go on a journey through different times as we see if there ever truly was a "golden age."