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."

It's Groundhog Day... again....

Hey Wood-chuck Chuckers, its Groundhog Day! (it is as I write this at least)

This morning in Punxsutawney, PA ole’ Phil the groundhog saw his shadow. Such a revelation was met with an anemic reaction since thus far the winter has been quite mild. So, why do we watch, why does this town put on this yearly pageant? Perhaps even more puzzling- why has a comedy centered around this holiday only grown in acclaim and even reverence since it premiered back in 1993? American literary theorist and legal scholar Stanley Fish named the film as one of the 10 best American films ever made. What about it led the United States National Film Registry to deem it "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” back in 2006 when it added the film to its ranks? Now I love Bill Murray and Harold Ramis but those guys don’t seem the type to hobnob with (what I’m assuming) must be a slightly snobby crowd in their new registry abode. Roger Ebert is an avowed fan- ok, you get the picture.

The super short summary is this: Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, an obnoxious weatherman who is sent on his yearly assignment to cover the Groundhog Day festivities and ends up reliving that same day over and over….and over again, until he has morphed into a new man with a new outlook on life.

We don’t know for sure how many times Phil relives that day. Director Ramis guessed about 10 years, though later he said that was probably not enough time and proposed a span of 30 to 40 years. After researching the film the website WolfGnards.com put forth the number of eight years, eight months, and 16 days based on how long it might take for Phil to master the many skills he has by the film’s end. Co-star Stephen Tobolowsky says that he was told by Ramis it took Phil 10,000 years to get it right.

One day repeated for 10,000 years?

The religious themes in this film run shallow and deep. It’s not at all hard to see for instance that Phil needs to be redeemed and given his comeuppance. And somehow this small town turns into his own personal Purgatory- even death doesn’t last. I read recently that the film is a fan of many Buddhists as Phil is seen experiencing a rebirth as he casts off his own selfishness to embrace caring for others. To look at it another way, Phil essentially reincarnates into himself and is only allowed to move on after experiencing a profound spiritual change (dare I use the word enlightenment?)

It makes perfect sense that it would take Phil a ridiculous amount of time to truly change. His initial reactions are very human and thus easily understood and even encouraged. One such reaction creates in him a potent God-complex and he seems to relish in his own brand of hedonism. He selfishly uses the absence of real consequences to indulge in all manner of sins, from robbing an armored car to seducing a naïve woman using information he gleaned from her during a previous “day.” He indulges his body knowing he doesn’t need to worry about after effects. He even wows a group of people by correctly answering every single Jeopardy question with subdued but still somehow potent panache.

Perhaps it is only after exhausting his options at being selfish does Phil start to get around to helping others. At the start he’s probably only doing so out of boredom. But the blanket of positive energy is just as fleeting as the previous selfish overtones- he is subjected to repeated failures at saving an old homeless man and is downright angry at how a boy he saves from falling “never says thank you.” It’s a wonder to me that we’re not shone what has to have been multiple relapses into his old ways that surely happened. His “unsuccessful” suicide attempts seem oddly justified and when doing good proves just as insignificant as being selfish it’s almost weird that he doesn’t again try to end his life. And yet, Phil finds a way to move on with a new attitude, perhaps even taking comfort in the fact that his future is oddly secure and he can bask in praise and pride for as long as the fates allow. The glow given by others is felt more deeply than the glow he had gotten so good at bestowing upon himself.

I could go on and on, (this is already twice as long as I assumed it would be) but that is not only because this movie is exceptionally well made and seems to only get better with age, but also because it stands as one of the most spiritual films I have ever seen. An expert on comparative religions could have a field day with it. A novice like me is almost incapable of separating and identifying all the themes. It’s all here: elements of karma, fate, purgatory, Prometheus reborn, hedonism, fatalism, and existentialism are shone to degrees unimaginable.

It might just take 10,000 years to fully explain “Groundhog Day”

Alex Kendrick's "Courageous"

There are many reasons why Alex Kendrick's film "Courageous" is worth taking the time to see and review on one’s own. First off, it is an independent film with a modest budget that has outperformed much bigger films. Two, it is a decidedly amateur film which, while it will never be confused with a film undertaken by seasoned professionals, is still worth recognizing for its strengths against great odds. Thirdly, it stands as huge step forward for faith-influenced films aiming at vey adult type problems and themes.
I happen to think that such a film being made and widely seen is an important step for filmmaking (as when any other such small film gets much attention) it is an astronomically huge step for Independent Christian Cinema. This film costs a mere $2 million dollars, had an opening weekend gross of $9 million and to date has made more than $30 million- or 15 times its budget.
***Take note America: there is a huge market in Christian themed movies. If this small movie can make $30 million imagine what a truly professionally made film can do****

Now for the honest truth- Is it a truly good movie? No, it’s not. Its cast and crew are almost all volunteers who are members of a church and who are not trained in the techniques of filmmaking. They have heart, time and some money and are willing to take a great risk in putting out such a film for the entire world to see and critique. But as I said the film is a huge improvement when compared to other Christian themed films released in the pastor decade or so (including Kendrick's previous film Fireproof which was quite poor but nonetheless successful)

So considering Kendrick is a pastor and author and not a screenwriter, director or actor (at least by trade) he handles all his duties surprisingly well. His direction of an action filled shoot out scene was a pleasant surprise for example, as was the occasional surprise in the dialogue that hints at a deeper concept of Christian living instead of just the generic lines we all know whether we believe or not. The bulk of the dialogue is still in need of a script doctor though. The non-student in me admires the slow pace of the film, it wasn't the usual 89 minute Christian film, and the obvious lack of ironclad story structure, at least to the degree that the story keep my surprised as to what would happen next and rarely created any sense of assumption of results. But even a non-student like me could see the poor execution in the story and script. True, I could never really tell what would happen next that is mostly due to Kendrick's willingness to take chances and not shy away from the hardships of life.

Therefore it ranks as one giant leap for Christian filmmaking and worthy of a more in depth analysis than I can do here.

In His Love,
Ben