End of the Spear

"The End of the Spear" is a movie of the true story of a fierce and suspicious tribe who martyr the first missionaries who come to them, only to be won over to Christ in the end. The heart of the evangelical struggle is convincing the tribe that God does not want them to live by the code of vengeance that is destroying them.

The famous story behind this film is of Nate Saint and four other missionary men making contact with a band of Waodani in the jungle of Ecuador in 1956. The men were speared to death. The rest of the missionaries, including the widows and children of the martyrs, continued to try to reach the Waodani. Eventually they broke through and won them over with Christ's love. Steve Saint, son of Nate, came back as an adult to establish a friendship with his father's killers. Eventually Steve and his family moved back from the United States to live with the Waodani as family. The "end of the spear" is not only how the martyrs died, but ending the way of spearing and vengeance.

The best part of the film for me, though, was not the dramatic reconciliation of the killer and the son who would not avenge his father's death. Rather, it was the moment when the gospel was first conveyed to a member of the tribe, who saw the possibility of a better way of life. A woman, who had fled to the Christians as a child after her family had been slaughtered in intratribal warfare, later became the crucial interpreter between the two groups. One of the men of the tribe, spear in hand, asked her why they should trust the Christians not to kill them in revenge. She said that the creator God of the Waodani had a son who was speared, but he did not spear back, so that the people who speared him could have a better life. As a result, his life is changed, and he helps change the rest of the Waodani to a new way. This, I think, is the main point.

The movie has been panned by most critics for wooden acting, and attacked by some anti-missionaries for obscuring the "real" motive of the missionaries as tools of the rapacious oil company. Audiences, though, have liked it better, and the film has been among the most successful of Christian movies. All of which is beside the point to me.

"The End of the Spear" gets the moment of evangelical contact right, when the gospel changes a life.

This post originally appeared in The Gruntled Center.

Bible study should be timely. It should stimulate our thoughts about Christian values and how they relate to today's world. The Thoughtful Christian is a Web-based resource center designed to attract and keep participants' attention. Perfect for Sunday school classes, Bible study groups, or individual reflection, the studies encourage class members to share their thoughts and beliefs while wrestling with questions that inform the way we live out our faith in everyday life. For more information please visit http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com.

"The Lives of Others" Not a Road to Damascus Moment

I commend to you the excellent new film, "The Lives of Others," by Florian Henckel von Donnsermarck. The central drama is the moral struggle within an East German secret policeman as he spies on a prominent playwright and his actress girlfriend. The policeman is a true believer in the East German state -- and the playwright is a hopeful socialist, "our only non-subversive writer who is read in the West," as another secret policeman describes him. The Stasi (State Security) man comes to see that his surveillance is just a tool of corruption and petty politics. The playwright, too, is driven to an act of covert rebellion against the police state. Their lives become deeply entangled. I'll not say more about the conclusion.

There is a lovely moment early on when a little boy asks the secret policeman if he is really a Stasi agent.
"Do you know what the Stasi is?"
"Yes. My dad says they are the bad men who put people in prison."
The audience knows this is a dangerous moment for the little boy's family.
"What is the name of ..." the policeman begins. And then he pauses. The actor - East German theater star Ulrich Mühe, who had his own large Stasi file in real life - shows the moral struggle going on inside the Stasi man using only his face.
"What is the name of your ... ball."
"You're silly. Balls don't have names."
The man lets it go.

In an interview included with the DVD, von Donnersmarck says that he wanted to show the policeman's moral struggle as slowly evolving, "not a Damascus moment." He remains the same tidy, quiet, almost compulsive man that he always was, even while his morals are changing. Von Donnersmarck, who spent some of the time writing the screenplay at the Cistercian abbey run by his uncle, said he didn't want his man to go from a gray bureaucrat to a hedonistic bohemian, like the artists he was watching. People don't change from Saul to Paul, the director said, unless there is divine intervention. "The Lives of Others" is about the moral changes we can come to make and choose for ourselves.

First posted on The Gruntled Center.

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has many studies on various Movies within our Popular Culture area. For more information please click here.

An Inconvenient Truth -- A Prophetic Call to Action

In the early moments of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore walks onto a stage at a college campus and introduces himself as the “ex-next President of the United States.” His clever introduction elicited laughter from the audience and revealed a surprisingly engaging side to the ex-Vice President. The Al Gore that is presented in this extraordinary documentary about global warming is a far cry from the stiff and sometimes surly Democratic candidate who huffed and puffed after almost every word uttered by George W. Bush during two Presidential debates in 2000. Here Gore exudes confidence and knowledge about global warming without being arrogant and concern for the well-being of the planet and its inhabits without being gleeful that many of his predictions are coming true. The facts he presents and the charts he uses to support them are as convincing as anything the politician has asserted since his emergence as a major political figure more than two decades ago.

During its one hour and forty-seven minute running time, the film features highlights of Gore’s lectures on global warming interspersed with the former politician’s reflections on his personal life. Global warming is clearly a passion for the former politician. An Inconvenient Truth traces Gore’s fascination with global warming back to his days in college and even includes footage of his appearance before Congress as a young politician advocating for things championed by several leading scientists and environmentalists.

In one of the more memorable parts of Gore’s presentations, he charts the gradual rise in temperatures each year. All of us remember the heat from last summer and are struggling to survive this summer’s stifling temperatures, and few of us would argue with Gore that 2005 was in fact the warmest year on the planet. In addition, he effectively demonstrates how some of the world’s largest ice caps have begun to melt and how it appears likely that this trend will continue.

A lesser film might have concentrated more solely on a scientific investigation and explication of global warming. But the film delicately explores Gore’s thoughts on some of the most personal aspects of his life and draws parallels between the life lessons he learned during these times and what we can learn about caring for the land with which God has blessed us. Gore recalls almost losing his six-year-old son and how that experience reminded him not to take for granted those things he thought he would always have or else he might ultimately lose the things that he holds most dear. He explains that we are, in fact, risking losing the land that we hold so dear when we continue to drive the cars we do, rely on oil the way we do, refuse to take steps to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, and fail to seek alternative sources of energy. In addition, he reflects upon the death of his sister to lung cancer and his support of the concerted effort of grass-root coalitions and eventually the U.S. government to dramatically reduce the number of smokers and thus the number of deaths that can be attributed to it. Then the former politician concludes that a similar effort must be undertaken to address the moral issue of global warming and demonstrates his unwavering determination to remain a major figure in the discussions on global warming and the environment.

Gore contends that the film is not political. But its reception and its coverage in the media might be. Approximately five years ago, well-respected political commentator George Will sat across from Washington This Week host George Stephanopholous and declared that global warming was one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in many, many years. Just a few weeks ago the former Vice President appeared on the same show shortly after the limited release of his film and fended off questions from Stephanopholous, who challenged him on several of the figures he quoted in the film. In addition, a number of scientists have spoken out in opposition to the theories espoused by the former politician in An Inconvenient Truth. Many of the scientists who doubt the data that Gore cites have accused him of relying on “junk science” and failing to consult “true climate experts,” who they believe have the knowledge necessary to explain the causes of global climate change.

The criticisms may be scientifically valid, but are any criticisms of the film’s messages of care for the earth and good use of natural resources biblically and theologically valid? As people of faith, we are called to let our voices be heard in service to God and all that God has created. The Book of Genesis informs us of God’s call for us to be caretakers of the earth and lays out for us God’s covenant with Noah and presumably all future generations. And Psalms 24:1 reminds us, “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it.” Al Gore is essentially asking us as a people to respond to this charge. Al Gore and his family left the Southern Baptist Convention, but his proclamations for love and care for God’s land couldn’t be delivered with any more zeal. Gore’s and the filmmakers’ motives for making the film appear to be above reproach. Reportedly, Al Gore will donate all of the money he earns from the movie to the Alliance for Climate Protection. In addition, the producers and directors of the film agreed to lower salaries, and Melissa Ethridge wrote the film’s original song for free. Paramount Vantage, the movie studio, is even pledging 5 percent of the film’s gross domestic sales to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Although the film has been discussed on The O’Reilly Factor and The Michael Medved Show, it hasn’t been blasted by the conservative media, many of whom flocked to early screenings in search of ammunition in case the politician decides to run for the Presidency in 2008 (As of this writing, Al Gore has still not ruled out the possibility of running). The relative silence of the conservative media may speak volumes about the film’s impact on the non-scientific community and its ability to register with viewers from all across the political spectrum and to rally concerned Christians who have long been searching for ways to turn the country’s attention to environmental issues.

An Inconvenient Truth has emerged from this summer’s largely lackluster fare as the most talked-about film of the season. The film has already moved past the critically-acclaimed Hoop Dreams and Super Size Me to become the fourth-highest grossing non-concert documentary of all time and is close to overtaking Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, the third-highest grossing documentary. Reaching across political party lines, it’s also among the smartest advocacy films in recent years. During its closing credits, the film creatively promotes the web site, http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm/ and lists ten action steps that any concerned individual and certainly any “thoughtful Christian” should be compelled to follow. The film also concludes with an African proverb that reads, “When you pray, move your feet,” which is another nudge for viewers to not only think about what they have witnessed but to make a commitment to act. As the film’s title suggests, the film lays out what it believes to be scientific truths that are just as inconvenient to accept as they are to address. At its core An Inconvenient Call is a prophetic call for us all to assume the roles as stewards and caregivers that God has given us and to work together as the diverse body of God’s people to use our natural resources wisely to ensure the safety and the future of the land God has bestowed upon us.

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has outstanding studies focused on various Movies within our Popular Culture section. For more information please visit the following link. Movies and Popular Culture

Movie Review - The Nativity Story

O.K. Like some other movies based on classics, “The Nativity Story” is not as good as the book, but I liked it.

When I first heard that a regular Hollywood company, not just some evangelistic foundation, was planning to make a story about the birth of Jesus I feared that it might be a kind of animated Christmas Card, with Mary dressed all in blue and with wise men wearing crowns, all in vivid technicolor, accompanied by an organ with a vibrato stop. The opposite is the case. Director Catherine Hardwicke has filmed almost all the story in subdued light, and the emphasis has been on realism. Much of the movie, I am told, was filmed in the ancient village of Matera in Italy, and in the film Nazareth looks like a poor, dirty, Arab village. Houses are made of stone, so small that all the family sleeps in one room. Kraisha Castle-Hughes’s Mary looks like the other village teen-aged girls, and with the others swaps glances with the boys. At one point she wonders, “Why is it me God has asked? I am nothing.” That is one point the story is making: Mary is an ordinary Jewish girl, though called to an extraordinary mission. There is such a minimum of flashing lights and dramatic action that the main complaint of those critics who did not like it is that the film is dull. Of course it can hardly be dull for those who love the story itself. The one point when the subdued lighting is abandoned is when the star beams, too brightly I thought, on the newborn baby.

It does have some Hollywood violence. It begins, and then near the end repeats, the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem. Having begun with that vividly portrayed slaughter, the film goes back a year to Nazareth. But even there the oppression by Rome is apparent. When a poor man cannot pay his taxes, the Roman soldiers carry away his daughter. Herod is menacing and yet fearful. The plot of the film centers around the power of cruel Rome and its terror that a Jewish Messiah will threaten it. I thought the Romans and Herod were just a bit too obviously cruel, though historically Herod certainly was a cruel man. I thought Shoreh Aghdashloo especially convincing as Elizabeth, delighted by Mary’s visit and screaming as she gives birth.

One report is that some in the Vatican were unhappy with the film because Mary appears so very human, puzzled, even afraid, and her parents are so humanly distraught by discovering that their unmarried daughter is pregnant. The small town is clearly scandalized when, as Mary returns from visiting Elizabeth, it is obvious that she has become pregnant. Oscar Isaac conveys clearly Joseph’s not-so-saintly dismay but, later, saintly care. Mary is allowed to scream in childbirth. The film avoids such apocryphal stories as that Mary was reared in the temple, that the cherry tree bowed down to her, and that Joseph was an old man.

The cast is a mixture of people from many nations, but in the film they all look much like the Iraqis we see every night on television. Unfortunately for people like me and others who have trouble hearing, all the characters speak English with an accent which I take to be Israeli.

I have exactly one claim to being a film critic. As a child in the Presbyterian Church of Gallatin, TN, I was in many Christmas pageants. Clad in a bed sheet, I was a shepherd and, later, a wise man. The movie is not a church pageant! For what my criticism is worth, I thought the film showed realistically the very real world of poverty, fear, and politics, where some struggle for survival and some for political power. Into that world, it reminds us, God came.

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has outstanding studies on various movies. For more information please visit us at http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November...

This year I had the chance to put together a teaching guide for the film, “V for Vendetta.” [sic, italics in html are killer] I enjoyed the film, but I had a few thoughts about the project that never made it into the teaching guide.

"Vendetta" is a film project of the Wachowski Brothers, the same Wachowski’s that delivered the "Matrix" trilogy. I was a big fan of the "Matrix" series, and I even wrote a book on the subject where I got to explore the major philosophical and religious themes at greater depth. So, I enjoyed the chance to work with another film from them.

I’ll say early on that they didn’t make up the “Vendetta” concept. Credit for that goes to Alan Moore, the comic book genius who’s had a number of his comic books translated into film -- probably second to only Stan Lee. These tend to be weighty, thinky books that really impact the reader even if the onscreen adaptation doesn’t convey that. What’s more, I have a heart for this audience: young people who are really wrestling with difficult questions as they become adults. Moore’s work tends to blend the two perfectly, giving enough substance to intrigue the adult and enough fantasy and flash-bang imagination to thrill the kid. The Wachowski’s are famously inspired by comics, and it’s fun to compare “Vendetta” with their own “Matrix” series. You can see how many themes in the later work actually influenced the earlier. (I remember one scene from the original “Matrix” where Smith tries to get Mr. Anderson to help, “bring a known terrorist to justice.” All of that was before the American encounter with terrorism.) Some people might scoff, but it’s the Wachowski’s background in comics that make them such good filmmakers. Their storyboards are rich, and they have clearly mastered the fine art of moving from one shot to the next that can only come from the science of telling a story from one panel to the next.

I wasn’t sure how the Christian community would respond to the “Vendetta” story. There’s a lot of violence in the story, and that’s going to lose a lot of people right there. A number of my friends had that kind of reaction to the “Matrix.” In my mind, there’s a wide gulf between art and actuality, but I realize that even this is a controversial view. I’m one of those guys that doesn’t think the world is falling to pieces because of violent video games. I saw “Bowling for Columbine:” lots of countries have guns and violent games and they don’t have our problems.

Another thing about violence: there is tremendous violence in the Bible, and many of these stories are integral to the collective tradition. I think that we have to be mindful of how these stories are interpreted, in light of the violence of our world, but I don’t think these stories simply need to be redacted until we are left with a peaceable Bible. Such a Bible would not even have the Psalms!

For that matter, I think “Vendetta’s” violence has some redeeming qualities, at least, technically and philosophically. In “Vendetta,” the violence very much “breaks the fourth wall.” We are very much reminded that this is not real and the movie is only a movie. Specifically, there is a story within a story, which has the effect of reminding the moviegoer that the movie is simply art. More to the point, the story within the story is a narrative that is designed to elicit sympathy toward homosexuals and other minorities. I much prefer that approach to depicting violence, than say, the approach of “Brokeback Mountain,” which depicts the violence in earnest, and perhaps creates a type of violence against the moviegoer.

I am starting to think that arguments against violence in movies are completely driven by politics. Many of the people who railed against the violence of Gibson’s "Passion" had nothing to say about "Brokeback ". For my part, I did not like Gibson’s “Passion” because I thought it was not biblical enough and had some egregious interpretations. It also felt cheap and an attempt at some kind of superlative argument that Christ is to be adored because Christ had it worst of all. That doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for building community or fostering spirituality.

Once that’s off the table, "Vendetta" is quite provoking. I went through a stage in college where I poured through every dystopia I could get my hands on. “Vendetta” is a “1984” for the post-9/11 world. I find the politics of the film a little simplistic and heavy handed, but those are clearly the issues of my generation.

One of the things about “Vendetta” is its broad-sweeping indictment of all societal institutions. The Church does not come across any better than the State. Sadly, these criticisms of the Church are far too on target, and the depiction of ecclesial corruption is too easily recognizable, but that’s the world we live in. And yet, I think there is also some attempt to explore the intensity of a personal faith that motivates us and inspires us in our darkest hour.

Personally, I think “Vendetta” is good “Thoughtful Christian” material, but my recommendation is to see it yourself before you share it with others.

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has an outstanding study on the movie "V for Vendetta". For more information about this and many other studies please visit us at http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com

ALL THE KING’S MEN

Panned by the critics, by the time you read this the 2006 version of All the King's Men may have been relegated to the video stores. The original version, however, won the Academy Award as the best picture of 1947. The new film is thought-provoking. Watching it made me read the Robert Penn Warren Pulitzer Prize winning 1946 novel on which the films were based.

In his foreword to the 1996 edition–from which I am quoting–Joseph Blotner says that Warren was not a conventional Christian but that he did believe in one Christian doctrine: original sin. That concept pervades the book. A focus of the story is Willie Stark, a Louisiana politician who is very similar to Huey Long. Stark campaigns as a populist, promising roads, schools, and a free hospital to Louisiana’s neglected poor. We are never quite sure how sincere he is, even in the beginning. But even though he wants to do good, he is soon convinced that “You’ve got to make good . . . if you want it, and you’ve got to make it out of badness. Badness. And you know why? . . . Because there isn’t anything else to make it out of” (p. 257). Assured of the evil in all people, as “the Boss” grows in power he is willing to destroy others to gain his own egotistical ends.

He instructs Jack Burden, the narrator of the story, to blackmail Willie’s political enemies into doing whatever Willie wants. “You don’t have to frame anybody [to blackmail them], and you know why? Because the truth is always sufficient,” Willie assures Jack. “You sure take a high view of human nature,” Jack replies. “Boy,” he answers, “I went to a Presbyterian Sunday school back in the days when they still had some theology, and that much of it stuck” (page 337).

Set over against Willie Stark’s cynicism is Adam Stanton’s naive belief in goodness. An utterly self-sacrificing physician, Alan lives in the slums to minister to the poor. Through Alan’s sister, whom Willie has seduced, Willie persuades Adam to accept the directorship of the proposed Willie Stark hospital, to be the best in the world and will free to everybody. But first Jack must disillusion the idealistic physician about the goodness of people he had once believed in. By the time Adam discovers that Willie is seducing Adam’s beloved sister, his faith has been so completely destroyed that he assassinates Willie. He himself is promptly gunned down.

Equally important in the novel is Jack Burden, the narrator. Utterly amoral at the beginning of the story, he dutifully obeys Willie’s instructions and digs out past guilt on Willie’s enemies. Especially there is a guilty, long-forgotten secret misappropriation of funds in the life of upright Judge Irwin. When Irwin supports an opponent of Willie, Jack attempts to blackmail him. Irwin, however, kills himself rather than give in to the corrupt “Boss.” The same day Jack is shaken by the discovery that the judge was really his father. Jack happens to meet a man with an uncontrollable twitch in one eye. Horrified by the realization that he had caused his own father’s death, Jack finds escape in believing “that nobody had any responsibility for anything and there [is] no God but the Great Twitch,” (meaningless fate) (p. 455).

Yet in the end, when Willie is confronted with a fatal accident to his son Willie becomes disillusioned about his grand power. “Some things don’t matter,” his wife tells him. “Don’t you see?” Grief stricken, he begins to see. He cancels a corrupt contract. He resolves to renounce his mistress and return to his wife. Too late . . . he is assassinated the same day. Yet his last words, sobbed out to Jack, tell something of the story and of his possible redemption: “It might have been different, Jack. You’ve got to believe that” (p.400)

Jack, too, gradually changes. He no longer believes in the Great Twitch. The book has been about evil. Near the end Jack, as narrator, quotes the words of an old religious fanatic: “Evil . . . had to be so that the creation of good might be the index of man’s glory and power. But by God’s help. By His help and His wisdom” (p. 437).

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has outstanding studies focused on various Movies within our Popular Culture section. For more information please visit the following link. Movies and Popular Culture

The Passion of Mel Gibson

There’s a saying in Hollywood: You’re only as good as your last movie. It’s meant to be a cautionary saying, but if you’re Mel Gibson and your last movie was The Passion of the Christ, which grossed 370 million dollars domestically and 241 million overseas, you should be golden. Sure, some folks argued that the movie was anti-Semitic and others that it focused on the brutal torture and death of Jesus to the exclusion of the message of his life. But it’s also true that The Passion was a phenomenon, bringing some evangelical Christians into the theaters for the first time in years and opening Hollywood’s eyes to the lucrative possibilities of marketing to the faithful.

The problem is, when you present yourself as a paragon of faith—or market yourself to the faithful as one of the faithful—you have to be above reproach. Caesar’s wife, and all that. So Gibson really hurt himself and certainly caused people to return to thinking about The Passion of the Christ when he was recently arrested in Malibu for drunk driving and reportedly spewed obscenities, insults, threats, and bizarre anti-Semitic ravings that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”

Okay, maybe they’re at least partly responsible for one war at the moment. But why on earth would a person say such things when he gets picked up for drunk driving?

My girlfriend Martha and I were talking about Mel and his anti-Semitic remarks. As good Episcopalians, we’ve been known to take a drink or two, we have seen how tongues may be loosened, and yet we had reached identical conclusions: As much as Gibson and his defenders have argued that he was simply drunk and didn’t know what he was saying, you don’t say those sorts of things drunk unless you think them sober.

I have been an admirer of Mel Gibson’s acting since I saw him in early movies like The Year of Living Dangerously, Gallipoli, and the first two Mad Max movies. I wanted to think the best of him during the Passion controversy. I liked the fact that he pre-screened the movie for Jew and Christian leaders alike. My friend Chris Seay, a leading Emergent Church pastor, actually called me from Mel’s house, where he and a group of pastors had been invited to see the film prior to its release. (Chris is always calling me from places more interesting than where I am.)

I chose not to see The Passion, but I wanted to think the best of its maker.

But just as evangelical leaders have reacted with outrage to Mel’s tirade, I have no choice but to reconsider my earlier attempts to consider him in the best possible light. A person can make a mistake; I’ve made several. Addiction is to be pitied, not condemned. And one can certainly criticize Israel’s foreign policy or treatment of the Palestinian question; I can and do. It needs to be criticized.

But when someone makes hateful and hurtful generalizations about any group of people, it is simply wrong. When someone has marked and marketed himself as a devout Christian, as Mel has, such a fall is doubly hurtful. And for a devout Christian to insult the very people from whom Jesus came—

Well, consider me boggled.

I know some people so misread the Gospels and ignore the contexts of the communities in which those Gospels were authoritative that they think Jesus was somehow separate from the Jewish community and tradition in which he lived and died. But in recent decades, the scholarly tendency has been to see Jesus as a completely representative Jew, a designation that shouldn’t diminish his historic importance or his divinity for Christians one iota.

Jesus was a Jew.

Deal with it.

Gibson received probation for his drunk driving offense—which I think is an appropriate punishment. No one was physically hurt by his offenses. And I can say that I was encouraged by Gibson’s apology. Whether a public relations volley or not, Gibson’s was a true apology. “I am deeply ashamed of everything I said” and “I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry” are steps in the right direction. I’m bone-tired of public persons making non-apologies when they have hurt other people.

So as a Christian, I have no option but to forgive Mel Gibson. It’s pretty much required of me.

But as for forgetting? That is going to be a challenge, both for me and for the movie-going public.

When I Googled “Mel Gibson” and “Anti-Semitic,” I got “about 2,650,000” hits. For my money, that’s about 2,650,000 more than a person ought to have have.

I fear that in film history books written years from now, we will find Mel listed alongside Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chaplin, or Roman Polanski—talented film artists destroyed or exiled by scandal.

And I can’t say that he won’t deserve that fate.

Greg Garrett is the author of the novels Free Bird and Cycling, the new memoir Crossing Myself: A Story of Spiritual Rebirth, and the forthcoming The Gospel According to Hollywood, as well as recent lessons for The Thoughtful Christian on Lebanon and Iran, the films Munich and Syriana, and church polity, among other topics.

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has outstanding studies focused on various Contemporary Issues. For more information please visit the following link. Contemporary Issues

On Pirates, Mafiosi, and Unpayable Debts

Is this an overstatement? The crucial experience of Christian faith is redemption.

If so, then “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” may be the most Christian movie of 2006. It is shot through with the quest for redemption. (It’s also bursting with bucks having just set the record for the highest grossing opening weekend in history with a take of $136 million.) The term “redemption,” by the way, carries no massive theological freight. It simply means that we are chained and cannot release ourselves or that have a debt we cannot pay. In both cases, we need someone beyond ourselves to release the chains or to pay the price.

I’ve offered some initial reflections vis-à-vis “Pirates II” on my blog, http://cootsona.blogspot.com. Here I go a slightly different, and more comparative, direction.

Mafiosi and Pirates being reasonably similar characters, it shouldn’t have surprised me to find parallels between “Pirates II” and “The Godfather,” even though the films are separated by almost three and half decades of American cultural change. I watched the latter masterpiece last night, the tale of the Corleones and their quest to retain power. The surprising realization is that both movies are both shot through with redemption—or at least the cry for it. The wiseguys are always wondering if they are in or out of protection, how much they are indebted, and whether they’ll hear the ultimate word of release from the Godfather. The pirates, especially Captain Jack Sparrow—and even the good citizens like Will and Elizabeth—are under various death sentences and struggle mightily to be free. In fact, I could argue that the tension of searching for, but not entirely finding, redemption functions as the key plot engine for both films. But I won’t make that assertion. Someone else can ….

I will pose one remaining question: Is this desire to be redeemed (and its always almost passive, by the by) a vestige of a once-vibrant Christian conscience in our nation, or is it a deeper imprint of the need for God to release us from our fallen state? In other words, did Christianity get this started, or is it hard-wired into human nature? I’m tempted to answer the latter, and here’s why: These films don’t import themes to the life of pirates or Mafiosi. They are indeed central to their existence… and, I’d add, the experience of a Americans in manifold other ways, like racking up unpayable consumer debt. The existence of pirates and Mafiosi only demonstrate what we all know: we are in predicaments we can’t solve, chains we can’t unlock, and debts that we cannot pay.
Greg Cootsona

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has many outstanding studies on various Movies in our Popular Culture section. For more information please visit us at http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com.

In Defense of Munich

The recent abduction of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit and escalating violence in the Middle East prompted me to offer this reflection on Munich, a bold film that offers compelling insights on the massacre of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Summer Olympics and subsequent events that further fueled the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Munich, the Oscar-nominated film from director Steven Spielberg, created a wave of controversy upon its release at the end of 2005. Although the film received a few negative reviews, it still finished the year with a higher overall rating from the nation's top critics than Crash, which ultimately took home the Oscar for Best Picture (from a survey of thirty of the nation'’s top critics in Premiere magazine'’s January 2006 issue).

Munich is Spielberg'’s account of the aftermath of the 1972 shootings of eleven Israeli athletes during the Olympic games in Munich. (Two athletes were initially killed and nine were taken hostage. When German authorities seized the airport, where the Palestinian terrorists were holding the Israeli hostages, shots broke out and the hostages were all killed.) The acclaimed director and award-winning writers Tony Kushner and Eric Roth based their screenplay largely from the book, Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by George Jonas and received Oscar nominations for their work. The film chronicles the Israeli government's decision to hire an unofficial team of assassins to kill the Palestinians responsible for the deaths of the Olympic athletes and follows the exploits of the assassins as they travel the globe seeking vengeance. The opening sequences in the film include actual black and white footage from the original American newscast reported by Jim McKay, giving the film added authenticity.

The film is brilliant in the way that it succeeds as both a political thriller and an intelligent commentary on the uncompromising positions that serve as the catalysts for the endless cycle of violence that has persisted in the Middle East for many decades. Although there are several nicely constructed action sequences, the film is one of Spielberg'’s most solemn pieces of work along with Schlinder's List and Saving Private.

Munich suggests that the problems vexing the region are not as one-sided as either Israel or Palestine would have us believe. There are Israeli murderers, and there are Palestinian murderers. The history involving the Jewish and Palestinian occupation and entitlement to land and territories in the Middle East is long and complicated and includes numerous accounts of death and destruction. The United States government and many others believe that Israeli occupation of those territories is absolutely essential to that country's protection from Palestinian terrorist groups. Others, however, believe that Palestinian resistance within the West Bank and Gaza Strip is justified as a result of a United Nations charter and stipulations in the Geneva conventions. The complexity of the conflict, which is the backdrop of Munich, is implied in conversations between Israeli government officials early in the film and again during a key conversation between an Israeli and Palestinian near the end of the film.

Spielberg, an American Jew, is now a paragon of commercial and critical success in Hollywood. The director is immensely respected throughout the industry, and his success has afforded him the opportunity to take the political and the commercial risks to produce and direct a project such as Munich. This film was particularly risky given the heavily Jewish Hollywood community, the changing political climate within the movie industry, and the influence and wrath of conservative commentators Michael Medved, Bill O'’Reilly, and others, who were all-too eager to criticize the director. Medved and O'Reilly, in particular, devoted extensive time on their radio and television talk shows to discuss the liberalism in Hollywood immediately upon the release of the film. In one of the single-most ridiculous statements in film criticism in 2005, Michael Medved referred to Munich as one of the worst films of the year. The sociopolitical commentator and film critic was so proud of his claim that his quote indicating his disapproval of the film played repeatedly during his showÂ’s commercials as recently as April 2006.

Munich prompts American Christians to consider the evolution of terrorism and its enormous consequences and challenges us to ponder appropriate responses to it. In addition, it is that rare film today that explores serious issues by presenting us with the black and white and the gray while moving us to experience a wide range of emotions. This is an achievement in itself, for we live in an age in which the discourse on the most important issues of the day is conducted on the simplest of levels. One of the more impressive aspects of the film is the way it depicts the transformation of Avner, the leader of the team of assassins. He contemplates the merits of his mission and questions his own Jewish faith tradition. Spielberg uses the plot point to ask the audience to consider the sins that people commit, the actions they commit in the name of religion, or how faith can move us to a new understanding. The dialogue in a memorable scene involving a Palestinian and an Israeli talking about the continuing conflict in their land is insightful. When both men finish speaking, viewers are compelled to at least seriously reflect upon Spielberg's contention that “"killing and counterkillings as a response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual motion machine. There's been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where will it end?"”

The director's assertion became the launching point for neo-conservative commentator David Brooks's widely-read op-ed piece in the December 11, 2005 edition of The New York Times. Brooks took Spielberg to task for creating a false world in his film, a world in which there is no evil. In true neo-conservative fashion, Brooks writes, "“But in the real Middle East the only way to achieve peace is through military victory over the fanatics, accompanied by compromise between the reasonable elements on each side."” In the world of David Brooks, evil exists within all those who rise in opposition to entrenched imperialistic forces and the U.S. and the only way to rid the world of evil is to resort to violence. In a sense he tells us that he knows the Palestinians who plant bombs are evil and fanatical, pure and simple. Underlying his argument is a deep bias against the Palestinian cause and unflinching allegiance to U.S. policy, which includes supplying Israel with weapons and military. To watch the cautiously balanced Munich and to conclude that Spielberg doesn'’t recognize the existence of evil is to place the term squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians and to fail to recognize the different types of evil and the theological distinctions between them. Where are the Christian principles in this notion? As Christians we must categorically reject the notion by Mr. Brooks, for we are called to love God and our neighbors and to understand the differences between natural and intrinsic evil and physical and moral evil. Unfortunately, thousands of people may have read the column by Mr. Brooks and consciously or unconsciously accepted his view as the truth without ever exploring the theological distinctions between the types of evil. Readers of the column may have missed what I think may be one of Spielberg'’s messages to us, that the term "evil"” can be used to describe the actions of both Palestinians and Israelis.

In the film'’s final scene, Avner, the lead assassin, meets face to face with Ephraim, an Israeli government official, in a park in New York City. Avner tells Ephraim that he cannot return to work for the Israeli government after his experience but then asks Ephraim to have dinner with him and his family. "“Won't you break bread with me?" he asks. Ephraim declines his invitation. Spielberg then brilliantly draws our eyes to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center that appear in the background, conjuring up images of 9/11 and the heinous attack on American soil. Munich is as much a retelling of the vengeance and counter-terrorism tactics sought by Golda Meier and the Israeli government as it is an anti-war and terrorism statement that presents in full view the powerful parallel that exists between the events that transpired after the Munich games and the U.S. government's response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. In the final moments of the film, the two men walk their separate ways, choosing not to "“break bread with one another,"” reminding us of the pain and isolation associated with conflict and our own refusal to break down the walls that divide us so that we can "“break bread"” with all whom the one God has created.

TheThoughtfulChristian.com has an outstanding study on the movie "Munich". For more information please visit http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com/Main/ProductDetails.asp?txtProductID=130