The Wonders of Pop Psychobabble

WARNING: The following post contains elements of Freudian psychobabble related to some of your favorite Pixar films, and could offend/ruin your Pixar-watching experience forever.

So I spent a very enjoyable afternoon in the library reading an article in the Journal of Modern Film and Television entitled "Post-Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in Disney/Pixar." The article discusses the emasculation of men in recent Pixar films, specifically highlighting Toy Story, Cars, and The Incredibles, and how they move from "alpha male" characteristics of domination and aggressiveness to embracing more of their feminine sides.

Although I originally started reading the article because I was interested in what they would say about Pixar and wanted to see how they defended their thesis, I was soon drawn into the article, my reading only broken by helpless fits of mirth at the sheer absurdity of many of their claims. The first bit that really made me start laughing was this:

“Emasculated” is not too strong a term for what happens to these male protagonists; the decline of the alpha-male model is gender coded in all the films. For his community service punishment, Lightning is chained to the giant, snorting, tar-spitting “Bessie” and ordered to repair the damage he has wrought. His own “horsepower” (as Sally cheerfully points out) is used against him when literally put in the service of a nominally feminized figure valued for more “feminine” orientation of service to the community. If being under the thumb of this humongous “woman” is not emasculating enough, Mater, who sees such subordination to Bessie as a potentially pleasurable thing, saying “I’d give my left two lug nuts for something like that.”

Seriously? Bessie is a symbol of being put under the thumb of a woman? Only women serve the community? Mater thinks such subordination would be "pleasurable"? But this is only the beginning. Only a few paragraphs later comes this gem:

From the beginning power is constructed in terms conspicuously gender-coded, at least for adult viewers: as they watch the incoming birthday presents, the toys agonize at their sheer size, the longest and most phallic-shaped one striking true fear (and admiration?) into the hearts of the spectators. When Buzz threatens Woody, one toy explains to another that he has "laser envy."

Wait, why does everything come down to phallic symbols? Oh, that's right, this is Freud talking (or maybe Jung). And things only get better (or worse):

The “mistress” tempting Mr. Incredible away from his wife and family is not Mirage at all but Buddy, the boy he jilted in the opening scenes of the film (whose last name, Pine, further conveys the unrequited nature of their relationship). Privileging his alpha-male emotional isolation, but adored by his wannabe sidekick, Mr. Incredible vehemently protects his desire to “work alone.” After spending the next years nursing his rejection and refining his arsenal, Buddy eventually retaliates against Mr. Incredible for rebuffing his advances. (bold added)

Now this is just getting ridiculous. Were the authors never kids themselves? Did they never idolize someone for their own sake, and not in a warped homosexual way? But this next section, right here, is the pinnacle of the ridiculousness. Read closely, because there's a lot of psycho-jargon in this bit, but it's worth the time you take to read:

Sedgwick further describes the ways in which the homosocial bond is negotiated through a triangulation of desire; that is, the intimacy emerging “between men” is constructed through an overt and shared desire for a feminized object. Unlike homosocial relationships between women—that is, “the continuum between ‘women loving women’ and ‘women promoting the interests of women’”—male homosocial identity is necessarily homophobic in patriarchal systems, which are structurally homophobic. This means the same-sex relationship demands social opportunities for a man to insist on, or prove, his heterosexuality. Citing Rene Girard’s Deceit, Desire, and the Novel, Sedgwick argues that “in any erotic rivalry, the bond that links the two rivals is as intense and potent as the bond that links either of the rivals to the beloved”; women are ultimately symbolically exchangeable “for the primary purpose of cementing the bonds of men with men.”

This triangulation of male desire can be seen in…Toy Story particularly, where the homosocial relationship obviously shares a desire for a feminized third. Buzz and Woody compete first, momentarily, for the affection of Bo Peep, who is surprisingly sexualized for a children’s movie….More importantly, they battle for the affection of Andy—a male child alternately depicted as maternal (it is his responsibility to get his baby sister out of her crib) and in need of male protection (Woody exhorts Buzz to “take care of Andy for me!”).

Did you catch that? Not only is Andy apparently a female archetype, and the primary purpose of women in a patriarchal society is to allow men to show their non-homosexuality by pursuing heterosexual relationships. Wow. . .

The article does make the valid point that the men in all of these Pixar films go from being domineering alpha-males to more gracious leaders, more appreciative of their families and friends, and much less arrogant. But unfortunately they put all this in terms of their "emasculation" and "acceptance of [their] more traditionally 'feminine' aspects," when in reality this is an embrace of biblical masculinity. No one said that just because alpha males exist, that's the definition of masculinity. In reality, that's the perversion.

But of course, it's not worth thinking too hard about this article, which has far too much nonsense in it to be taken seriously. Just enjoy it for what it is: a microcosm of modern feminist Freudian psychobabble.

And try not to let it ruin Pixar for you, too.

The Story of a Film...and Its Critics

So a movie comes out that becomes an instant hit. It's not an especially well-made film, but it has a couple of things going for it: exciting action sequences, a charismatic lead, and (most importantly) a killer MacGuffin, a filmmaking term for "an object or goal that kicks the film into the third act" (Jim Windolf, "Keys to the Kingdom"). The film instantly achieves a certain classic status. Two popular sequels are released, which combine the same ingredients together into cinematic gold.

However, over the course of the next few decades, the movies become idealized in the American mind. People who had originally been drawn in by the key ingredients begin to see the trilogy of films as something more, as truly great works of art. They raise their children watching them, who, with the innocence of childhood, enjoy the action and the funny lines and the MacGuffin and exalt it possibly higher in their imagination. It achieves true legendary status, unassailable with traditional cinematic critical objections such as believability or good acting.

Then come rumors that one more film is to be made. People are shocked that anyone would even consider adding to perfection, but are curious to see what will happen. And so a fourth film comes out, and is met with...hatred. People despise it. "It fails to live up to the originals," they claim. "It's completely unbelievable. It's stupid. And the MacGuffin makes no sense." Yet the very things they complain about are drawn directly from the first three films. The action is no less absurd, the MacGuffin no more outlandish, the plot no more unrealistic than the first three. But the difference is that the first three are accepted on their own terms, whereas the fourth is being compared to the legendary, inviolable images which most people held in their minds of the originals.

The films, of course, are the Indiana Jones films. The actor, Harrison Ford, mostly carries all four films by himself, only helped by the outrageous action scenes (come on people, is the journey into the "inner sanctum" of the grail any less outlandish than surviving a nuclear blast?) and the supernatural MacGuffins: i.e. the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and El Dorado. People claim that the the fourth film is much worse than the original three (or at least, Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, since Temple of Doom gets a bad rep from just about everyone). But they fail to see that, in terms of MacGuffins, the angel of God coming out of the Ark is no less outlandish than El Dorado having been built by space aliens. The only difference is that Raiders was accepted on its own terms for what it was, and then elevated to unassailable mythical status, whereas Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been compared to that mythical symbol and then despised for the very things that made people love Raiders in the first place.

This may just be a rant, but I hate to see people put down a film like Crystal Skull for such irrational reasons as a hatred of something new that dares to try and live up to something old. When people try to make a film more than it actually is, the film fails miserably. The Indiana Jones films were never meant to be more than a combination of the best elements of 1930's B-action flicks, and they succeeded in that. The new one, since it had been pushed up 20 years into the 1950's, decided to combine that original feel with the best elements of 1950's B-sci-fi flicks, and despite its success at doing so, people hated it for that.

If people could somehow take the original films off the pedestal where they have placed them and compare them rationally to the fourth film, I think they would see that Crystal Skull follows in the Indiana Jones tradition very well. No, it's not a great film, but then, neither were any of the original trilogy. What the films do is capture that little child inside us who wants to be out saving the world, kicking butt, taking names, and finding out what really happened to the Ark, the Grail, and the City of Gold.

So instead of criticizing, sit back and enjoy The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It has everything you loved about the originals, if only viewed from the right perspective.

EDIT: Well, it turns out that George Lucas has already said it, and better than I did: "The fans are all upset. They’re always going to be upset. ‘Why did he do it like this? And why didn’t he do it like this?’ They write their own movie, and then, if you don’t do their movie, they get upset about it. So you just have to stand by for the bricks and the custard pies, because they’re going to come flying your way." ("Keys to the Kingdom")

Coach Carter

Just watched this really amazing movie. It's about this coach who benches his undefeated high school basketball team because they are failing their classes. There are so many good messages in this movie about education, inner-city schools, the cycle of failure, perserverance, and what really counts in life. The acting was great, the production values were great...it was a well-done movie.

And yet I am upset. I'm upset for two reasons. First, it portrays abortion as a necessity in the inner-city for anyone who wants to escape. It's the only sensible thing to do. This grates on me for obvious reasons if you know my pro-life positions. But that wasn't my biggest problem with the film. My biggest problem was a philosophical problem. At the most pivotal moment of the film, as the players finally decide to own Coach Carter's decision for themselves, one of them stands up and recites a portion of this famous poem from Marianne Williamson:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,
gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine, as children do.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously
give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.

In the new version of Godspell's "Prologue", this is the quote chosen to represent the New Age worldview. Marianne Williamson is one of the world's most prominent New Age leaders. The use of this quote in Coach Carter automatically aligns the ultimate goal with the New Age. And that's what really bugs me. This movie was so full of good morals, good lessons for life, but then the justification for all these lessons is...a page out of the New Age handbook.

Yes, most movies these days represent this New Age, postmodern outlook on life: "Believe in yourself," "Be true to your heart," "Follow your dreams, and you can do anything." Sure, Coach Carter is not even close to alone in proclaiming these views. What amazed and disappointed me was that it so blatantly chose to align itself with this worldview that it would even quote something like that. I find it greatly depressing.

So final evaluation: Great movie, great lessons, terrible worldview. And that is highly unfortunate.

Spider-Man 3

Okay, so much for trying to post every day to get caught up. It's amazing how easily your time gets eaten up when you have less to do. I'll have to work on that this summer...but for now, I'm going to post something that was not even on my list of upcoming posts: a review of Spider-Man 3 that I had written back on opening weekend and then never posted so that I didn't spoil it for anyone. I guess the statute of limitations has run out by now, so here's the big post (as written on May 4).

Last night I went out with my coworkers and watched the midnight showing of Spider-Man 3. However, it would not be fair for me to give a bunch of spoilers to everyone else who did not go to the midnight showing, so I'm not going to actually post this article for several weeks to give people a chance to see it. So here's my disclaimer again: The following review contains major spoilers and expects familiarity with all parts of the plot, including the ending, so don't read it if you don't want the movie spoiled.

First, my critical review: I enjoyed the movie. I don't feel like it met the high standards set by the first two, but it was an overall enjoyable movie. I had three major concerns with it: first, it felt like they were trying too hard in this film. The first two films were known for their "more is less" mentality, but this one went all-out to try and wow and impress. The best example of this is that there are four major villains in this film, which just feels like too many. The special effects were great (especially on Sandman), and the backstories were good, but not fleshed out because there was too much going on. Second, the editing felt poorly done. So many times I felt whipped around, like they were trying to fit too many things in, so they just had to show me this--and then that--and then this because we were running out of done.

Third, much of the humor felt very campy and out of place in this film. Both of the earlier films had moments of humor, but this one played up the jokes significantly, especially during the time when Peter is under the influence of the black suit. For example, he breaks out into a whole dance sequence at one point, which personally left me thinking, "What on earth?" It seemed like the audience was constantly being led to laugh at times when a laugh felt out of place (part of this was because of some very melodramatic moments that came between Harry and MJ). However, the French waiter did not feel out of place (at least to me), and I quite enjoyed it (it felt very John Cleese-esque...in fact, at first I thought it was John Cleese).

So those were my critical comments, but I also found some great thinking moments I wanted to comment on. Overall I thought that the alien symbiote that first took over Peter and then Eddie Brock made some great points about the nature of sin (although not perfect by any means). It was a sort of Jekyll/Hyde adventure, where Peter loves the power rush that putting on the black suit gives him, but soon finds that it is possessing him and turning him into something terrible. When he finally tries to free himself from it, it is intensely difficult. When it takes over Eddie, turning him into Venom, he loves the way it makes him feel angry, and at the very end, when Peter gives him the opportunity to escape from its clutches, he runs back in and embraces it as it is destroyed, taking him with it. He is so attached to the anger that he is willing to be destroyed rather than part with it. It is sad, but it's a great picture of how sin grabs onto our lives, makes us feel good, but eventually destroys us.

So it was an imperfect film and could have been much better, but I did enjoy it. If you want to see a great superhero film, though, watch the first two and Batman Begins. Those are the cream of the crop.

III Movies

So I have to admit that I am pretty excited about several of the movies coming out this summer, even though the vast majority of them are sequels. Actually--I found this amusing--most of the blockbusters this summer will be III movies, not just sequels. For example, the one's I'm really excited about:



























































Plus there are some III movies that I might see, although I'm not expecting much from them:






































Then of course, there are a few movies that aren't III movies that should still be good:

Why do I bring this up here? No particular reason except that 1) I don't have time for a real post and 2) I'm going to see Spidy 3 at the midnight showing this week, so it's on my mind. Hope it lives up to its predecessors!


(And guess what? Batman Begins has a sequel coming out next year, with the original cast and Christopher Nolan back at the helm, and it's called The Dark Knight. So excited!)

The Matrix

If there was any movie designed for the kind of evaluations I like to write, it was this one. It's a worldview encapsulated in a film. There are, admittedly, analogies to Christianity, but ultimately it is a very New Age film. Dissecting all of the different paths this takes would be a much longer post than I have the time or the patience for, so I'll just touch on a few of them. (Once again, there are many spoilers contained in this review, and I'm writing it with the assumption that the readers are familiar with basic plot elements.)

People often point to a few different aspects of the movie to say, "Look, this is basically a Christian allegory." First, they point to Morpheus's explanation at the beginning when he says,

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth...that you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch.

"See?" people will say. "That's a perfect description of sin. It's a prison that we can't sense, and it's universal to all humans." And those people are right. It's a good description of sin. However, I don't think that's what the directors were aiming for. As a matter of fact, I know it, and that's because of the very next line Morpheus says: "A prison for your mind." This line can certainly be interpreted to be Christian, but in the context of the rest of the film it most certainly is not. It is much more similar to the New Age thought that our minds are the only real part of our selves. The body is merely illusion, the mind is everything, and if you can properly understand your mind, you can gain great power. You can even become like a god.

Which leads me to the second evidence that people often point to: Neo as Messiah. He is the chosen one who will save the world (and it turns out he saves it through sacrificing himself, as I found out reading a plot synopsis of Matrix Revolutions, the final movie in the trilogy). Obviously, nobody says that he's a perfect allegory of Christ, but many people think it's the most Christian element of the film. And once again I agree, to a point. There are several parallels between Neo and Christ. However, these parallels are certainly not because the Wachowski brothers were aiming for it. On the contrary, as I've shown and as interviews with them demonstrate, they are much more New Age in their sensibilities.

On a related sidenote, I'd like to point out that the concept of a Messiah fits well into New Age thought, because many New Agers believe that some humans will move or evolve to a higher consciousness and that by doing so will pull the rest of humanity with them. For example, Marilyn Ferguson states "The proven plasticity of the human brain and human awareness offers the possibility that individual evolution may lead to collective evolution" (The Aquarian Controversy, p. 70). Sounds a little bit like Matrix, doesn't it?

What is my point in all this? Essentially, it's to point out something that the Apostle Paul addressed well in Romans 1: mankind knows the truth, but in his pride and self-sufficiency he suppresses the truth. Man doesn't want to believe that God is in control, so they invent their own world and force themselves to believe in it. Thus they simultaneously know the truth and don't know the truth. Yet God still loves them after that, and he pours out what is known as common grace to all men, allowing them to demonstrate aspects of his character without knowing it. He stops them from being as bad as they could be. Men still try to construct their own worlds, but because they know the truth they can merely borrow from the truth (albeit subconciously) to construct these worlds. Paul acknowledges this in Acts 17 when he speaks to the Athenians, telling them that their poets had the right idea but applied it to the wrong place. They were decieved, but they had a nugget of truth.

Matrix contains many of these nuggets of truth, possibly more than most movies. The idea of a prison that we're all trapped in and a Messiah that will come to save us from it comes straight from Christian doctrine. Yet the ideas are misapplied into a New Age sensibility. It's like a gigantic non sequitur, a logical fallacy that literally means "doesn't follow. It describes the fallacy wherein the premises are established and then a conclusion is drawn that completely doesn't follow from those premises. That's how the depraved mind works: it knows the truth, but it draws the wrong conclusions because it refuses to draw the right ones.

But there is common grace, or else this movie would be worthless. A Christian can watch The Matrix and appreciate all the nuggets of truth scattered throughout the movie. For example, at one point, Cypher, as he agrees to betray his crew, states that "ignorance is bliss." He knows what the truth is, but he'd rather have the illusion because it's easier, less painful, and he can get a juicy steak. That's how so many people are with Christianity. They are brought to the point where they know what the truth is, but they refuse to accept it because accepting it would make them lose control over their life, or because it scares them. They would rather not know at all, be ignorant of the truth, so they can go on being comfortable.

It's a beautiful analogy of responses to Christianity. Is that what the directors intended? Probably not. But the truth got through anyway. So as I watch this film, I can appreciate the common grace evident in the movie, and think about the obvious areas of deception. It's a valuable movie for prompting a reevaluation of my concept of reality. And it leads me to pray for the Wachowski brothers and the other New Agers who are still deceived. Common grace is amazing, but only saving grace will open their eyes to the whole truth.

Disclaimer: this film is rated R for language and violence. The violence is relatively non-graphic, most of it being kung-fu and gun-fighting, with blood sometimes coming through the mouth and one image of a character's face which has been severely beaten. There is also a scene at the beginning that takes place in a club that is sensual and not necessary to the plot. Please use discretion.

United 93

Some movies are hard to watch because they are brutally graphic. Some are hard to watch because they portray something that makes us squirm. Some movies are hard to watch because they hit so close to home. United 93 falls into the latter category. It's the story of United Airlines Flight 93, one of the four planes hijacked on 9/11 and the only one to not reach its target, crashing into a field in southern Pennsylvania. (Warning, this review contains major spoilers, although I think everybody is pretty familiar with this story as it is.)

The movie starts as a normal morning in the United States, moving around to different airports and control centers as the morning rush begins. Things progress in an unremarkable way...until American Airlines Flight 11 stops responding to air traffic controllers. It disappears over Manhatten as flames shoot out of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The story quickly unfolds as two more planes stop responding, and the film hops to all the different control centers trying to figure out what's going on as the South Tower gets hit, then the Pentagon.

Throughout all of this, interludes are taken with the passengers of United 93, who are unaware of everything that's going on except for the four Arabs scattered among the passengers. Finally the terrorists jump out of their seats, shove everyone to the back of the plane, and take over the cockpit, killing both pilots and a stewardess. The passengers huddle in the back, sneaking calls on their cell phones until they discover that the WTC has been hit. They decide that this must be a related hijacking and decide to take the terrorists out. The film ends as the men charge and incapacitate the two terrorists guarding them, and then break into the cockpit and, while trying to wrench the controls out of the hands of one of the remaining terrorists, crash the plane into the ground. As the ground approaches on the screen, it goes black and silent.

I can honestly say that of all the thrillers that I've seen, my heart has never pounded so hard as when those men charged the cockpit. Even though I knew the ending, the way that the tension had built and built until it finally broke in those last five minutes left me almost gasping for breath as the credits rolled. I felt a stirring in my heart, a pride in the selfless, self-sacrificing bravery of these men who knew that they were saving countless lives by giving up their own. It was an emotional ride.

For most of the movie, I felt like I had a fist in my gut, just waiting for the next blow to fall and knowing it would come. When the second plane hit the WTC, it was like I was seeing it for the first time, and it was just as shocking and just as painful to watch. That's what makes this film so hard to watch for most people: it strikes so close to home. When watching a movie on other great American tragedies, such as Pearl Harbor or Lincoln's assassination, it's possible to watch without being too emotionally attached because the events took place so long ago. Not so with this movie. These events took place only six years ago, and the memories are still fresh in most of our minds of the horror we experienced on that day.

There are two movies that I think everyone who is emotionally and mentally prepared should see at some point in their life: The Passion of the Christ and Schindler's List. Both should be seen because they remind us of the depravity of man and of the providence of God. They remind us of our own sorry history as a human race, but also of the possibility of redemption. I think every person should be forced to face the horrors of the Holocaust at one time, because it keeps us humble and in awe that God would choose to save monsters like us. And I think that every person should be forced to face the horrors of the Crucifixion, because it was only through those horrors that mankind has redemption.

However, I'm considering adding this movie, United 93, to that list. Why? First, it shows us that our sorry history didn't end with the Holocaust. It continues up the present day. Second, it shows us as Americans what we're up against in this war: fanatic Muslims who are ready and able to destroy us. We can't sit back complacent because they are not complacent. Third, it is a reminder of the depravity of man that anyone would be shocked by, but it is also a reminder of the common grace that God has poured out on mankind. Fourth, it is a wake-up call that we don't know what tomorrow brings. None of those people got on that plane expecting to die. They were expecting to get home, to talk to their family, to get back to work. They were thinking about the present, and the future never came. We need to seize every moment we have, because every moment could be our last.

These are just some thoughts inspired by the movie. It was amazing, one of the most amazing films I've ever seen. Paul Greengrass as director did a marvelous job making it real. They weren't actors talking for a camera, they were real people going about their real lives and real jobs. He actually managed to secure around 15 people to actually play themselves in the movie (various men around the air control centers, both civilian and military). The film was shot with a handheld camera that moved around, jerked and bumped, had to maneuver around people in the way, as if it was just a home video being taken of these important events. The movie was technically and artistically excellent. But more importantly, it was thematically excellent, and treated this true story with the respect it deserved. Greengrass deserved his Oscar nomination for directing, and maybe should have won it. Either way, this is an excellent film, one which I would highly suggest for those prepared for it. But be warned: you'll come out changed. There's no doubt about it.

Disclaimer: This film contains strong language and some graphic violence. Most of the violence is hurried and not focused on, but there are still stabbings, beatings, etc., as first the terrorists and then the passengers fight to take over the plane. Additionally, it is an emotionally moving film that could easily disturb the viewer. Please use discretion.

Schindler's List

Not since The Passion of the Christ have I experienced a movie quite like this one. It's one of those movies where you just sit there as the credits roll and blink, trying to process what you've just seen. And the first thought is, How is that even possible? How can anybody participate in the mass extermination of an entire people?

The movie is based on the true story of Oskar Schindler (played masterfully by Liam Neeson), a German-Czech business man who enters Krakow to start a new business. With the help of his Jewish accountant, Itzhak Stern (played by Ben Kingsley), he amasses a fortune by using the Jews to work in his factory. His factory soon becomes known as a haven, a safe-house, and although he initially resists, he eventually becomes more active in helping to save Jews from death. This culminates when the entire Krakow work-camp is to be sent to Auschwitz, and Schindler uses his entire fortune to buy the lives of 1100 Jews to work in a new factory he's built in Czechoslovakia. The movie won 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director (Steven Spielberg, and was nominated for 5 more, including Best Actor (Liam Neeson) and Best Supporting Actor (Ralph Fiennes as the German commandant).

The movie doesn't pull any punches. It shows you the full depravity and savagery displayed by the Nazis as they ruthlessly slaughter the Jews. The fact that the entire movie, save the beginning and end and symbolic flashes of color throughout, is in black-and-white, does little to alleviate the brutality of what the audience sees. While you read in the history books that they stripped the men and women down in the middle of winter to see how physically fit they are or to herd them into the gas chambers, this movie shows it in all of its graphic detail. You read that the Jews would dig ditches, and then line up to be shot and buried in those same ditches; here you see them do it. You hear that when they burn the bodies, the ashes rain down like snow; here, the ashes fall right on Schindler's face.

When I walked through the Holocaust Museum, I was sobered by the reality of what occured during those ten years in Germany. Yet all you can see at the museum is pictures and text. This movie is like a live-action Holocaust Museum and is all the more brutal for that reality.

The character of Oskar Schindler fascinates me. He is one of those men who is great because he sacrificed his own fortune and his own safety in order to save the lives of thousands of Jews. When the movie finished, my mom instructed me that I was to name my first child Oskar. He is a truly amazing man, and I can only wish I would have done the same in his place.

The first question to come to mind when any account of the Holocaust is given is, "Why?" And I really don't have an answer for that. Sure, God predestined it to happen, but I can't for the life of me understand why. And although I know that man is inherently evil, still I can't understand how any man could stoop to do what thousands of Nazi soldiers did. It's humbling, to tell the truth, because the Bible tells me that, apart from grace, I am just like them. This doesn't seem possible, but I am a master at trusting myself. Sure, I may never have shot anybody in the head just out of spite, but I could. It's a scary thought.

These thoughts are a little hodge-podge, but I'm trying to pull them together. On the one hand, I am once again sobered by the depths of human depravity, but on the other, I realize that I too was a sinner like that before Christ saved me. I can't understand the Holocaust, but I can trust God that his ultimate purposes will be fulfilled through such a terrible event. And I can be thankful that he gives these kinds of movies to make us think and make us tremble.

*Disclaimer: this film contains graphic nudity, violence, and language. Most (but not all) of the nudity and violence is true to historical accounts of what actually happened, including stripping the women down to go into the gas chambers. There is some gratuitous nudity and sexual content, though. As such, I do not suggest it for anyone who is not fully informed of the content, and would also highly suggest watching it with a parent (like I did).

!Hero

A Jesus with dreadlocks? A triumphal entry into Yankee Stadium? A crucifixion on a street sign? What’s up with this? Don’t be afraid, it’s just !Hero: The Rock Opera, a modern day retelling of the story of Jesus as envisioned by Eddie Degarmo, CCM industry veteran, told in the vein of Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. The first reaction of many will probably be, “Isn’t this blasphemous or something?” Well, no, I don’t think so. Merely bringing the story into the present and adding some wailing guitars and driving rap beats is not in and of itself wrong. The real question is how they do that. This article is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the show (which I watched in Live on Stage), but merely an evaluation of what it actually is: a presentation of the gospel.

First, though, I need to touch on the music. I love music with a passion, and I will admit that this music got me excited. From the rapcore of “Raised in Harlem” to the dark pop of “Shadowman” and the Brit rock of “Secrets of the Heart”, most of the songs here are top quality, keeping my head bobbing and my earworm singing long afterward. Visually, it was full of amazing modern dance, lots of wild lights, and two huge screens constantly showing applicable images. As a show, it’s top quality. You can tell that many of the singers were chosen for their names and not for their acting ability (Michael Tait of dcTalk does an adequate job as Jesus/Hero and Mark Stuart of Audio Adrenaline is so-so as Peter/Petrov, but they definitely were not chosen primarily as actors). However, it’s quite a show to watch and hear.

But how’s the theology? Does the show actually get things right where it really matters: the gospel? I’m sorry to say that I don’t believe it really did. And that’s too bad, because these are some of the biggest names in Christian music we’re talking about here. What seemed to be the biggest statement of Jesus’ mission came in “I Am”, a dcTalk-type ballad that had Tait singing “I am, I am/the one to make a change/who's gonna do it if I don't step to it/I am." Hero himself never says that he’s come to save the lost, but merely that we all need to love each other. Rebecca St. James, who plays Mary Magdalene/Maggie says more about the actual gospel than Hero does. In place of the real gospel—Jesus came to die on the cross and save us from our sins, since we can’t save ourselves—we get the social gospel—Jesus came to spread love and teach us to love our neighbors. And that’s just too bad.

I actually borrowed the DVD of the show from Mrs. Mays, the director of our youth musicals. She told me that they had actually considered doing this show last year, but eventually decided not too. After watching, I think I know the two reasons why. First, logistically, we don’t have anyone who can come even remotely close to rapping like T-Bone. And second, when you have a show like Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat with just about no religious convictions anywhere, it’s relatively easy to put in a biblical worldview and preach the gospel through it. But when you have a show like !Hero that tries to be theological and ends up preaching the wrong gospel, it’s very hard to redeem it. And that’s the main problem with the show. It has great music, but the theology is what kills it. What a pity.

Dead Poets Society

So a post on the Fourth Commandment is forthcoming...but it's not quite done yet. However, here are some thoughts that I wrote on my Xanga that I thought would fit well on this blog. So until we return to our regularly scheduled series, this will have to do.

The basic premise of the movie Dead Poets Society is that a teacher named John Keating (Robin Williams) comes into a preporatory school to teach English Poetry. His motto is "Carpe Diem", Latin for "Seize the Day." He uses unorthodox methods to teach his students not to conform, to rely on themselves, to really take something out of life with them. He inspires the students to resurrect something called the Dead Poets Society, where they sneak out to a cave at night and read poetry to each other, among other things. He inspires the students to do things they never would have done before, to step out and take chances. But everything backfires when one boy, who goes against his father's wishes to join a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream, commits suicide when his father pulls him out of the school. In the resulting investigation, Keating is kicked out of the school.

The final scene of the movie shows Mr. Nolan, the president of the school, trying to teach the class while Keating collects his personal belongings. One of the students jumps up on his desk in defiance, using a symbol used by Keating earlier in the movie, declaring "O Captain, my Captain" as a sign of respect for Keating. One by one all the members of the Dead Poets Society join him on top of their desks, defying Mr. Nolan's repeated injectures to sit down. It is a powerful scene that leaves you with goosebumps.

As I sat through the movie, I was constantly tempted to be swept away by the amazingly profound, motivating things that Keating was saying. "Boys, you must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out!" That sounds so great! I want to break out of confines, find a voice of my own, do my own thing my own way! Who needs anyone else telling me what to do? That only stifles me. It's a really motivational thought, isn't it? Or then he says this: "Now we all have a great need for acceptance, but you must trust that your beliefs are unique, your own, even though others may think them odd or unpopular, even though the herd may go, 'That's baaaaad.'" My beliefs are my own. I shouldn't blend into something that someone else thought up. I need to make up my own way to think. It's so exhilirating to think that way, so freeing. I don't need anyone else, it's all about me now.

Robin Williams does a fine job delivering his lines in probably the best acting role I've ever seen him in. That's the main problem. He's so good that you don't grasp the fact that he's spoonfeeding you lies. They are the lies that we all want to believe, that most of the time we really do believe. Who needs God? He's just stifling my inner greatness. Why should the church tell me what to do? I have a right to do whatever I want. I'm a free person. These are the very lies that the snake told Eve in the Garden of Eden: Just think, if you move outside of what God has told you to do, you can be like God. You'll be your own person, live your own life, do your own thing.

Then there's the end of the movie: Neil wants to be an actor, but his father wants him to focus on his studies and avoid the extra-curriculars. Neil defies his father and joins a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream as Puck. When his father finds out the day before the show opens, he orders Neil to drop it immediately. Neil defies his father, lying not only to him but also to Keating, who had urged him to talk with his father (about the only biblical thing he said the entire movie), and performs as Puck the following night. His father then finds out, takes him home, and tells him that he will be withdrawn from the school the following day and put into a military school. Neil wants to argue with him, but chickens out at the last second, and they go to bed. In an emotionally powerful sequence Neil stands by the open window with his Puck crown, then walks downstairs, finds a pistol in his father's drawer, and shoots himself with it.

When you watch Neil do this, your first reaction is, "Yes, he's taking his life into his own hands. He's not letting his father boss him around anymore, but he's saving his last vestige of dignity by dying." But then you think about it: shooting himself was actually an act of cowardice. He couldn't bring himself to stand up to his father, chickening out several times when he had the perfect opportunity. So he shot himself instead. The movie tries to portray him as a hero, and does a marvelously good job at it, but if you can sit back and evaluate the circumstances, Neil took the easy road. He didn't want to risk confrontation or his father getting really mad at him, so he killed himself. The hard thing would have been to sit down and talk with his dad about exactly what was going on, having a heart-to-heart. But that's not what the movie tries to make you think.

The miracle of movies is that they can tell you something like this, in the blatant terms I've quoted, and if we're not paying close attention we as Christians can be taken right in. When Keating's teachings lead Neil to shoot himself because he can't get his own way, the students' (and the movie-watchers') first reaction is that it wasn't his fault. Keating was teaching us to take our lives into our own hands, to not let anyone else define us, so when Neil's dad tried to define Neil, Neil had every right to shoot himself. So when the abrasive Mr. Nolan comes into the classroom, embracing the very structure that Keating had tried to throw out, and Todd stands on his desk in a salute to Keating, you're cheering for them, happy that someone is finally sticking it to that stuck-up Nolan. But then you stop to think about it: what am I cheering for? I am cheering for all the lies that Keating told that led to Neil's death. The lies that came straight from the pit of hell. It's really a scary thought.

The cinema is really a scary thing, how it can twist your mind into thinking something completely opposite to everything you know to be true with a few soaring violins and dramatic lines. That's why you really never can turn your brain off, but, as John says, "Test the spirits to see whether they are from God." Just because a movie is well-made doesn't mean it has good morals, and sometimes they can give something completely opposite to what Scripture says is true. Will you be taken in, deceived by the serpent once again, or will you stand for God's truth?

By the way, if anyone is planning on watching this movie, there are some other warnings to be given. There is some language and innuendo, and at one point a boy pulls out a Playboy centerfold. That's about the extent of what went into its rating (PG, but this was before they came out with the PG-13 rating, which it certainly would have deserved).