Archive for the ‘Art’ Category

« Older Entries

Low budget eye candy and debates over worship

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

What hath the dreadful Star Wars prequel “The Phantom Menace” to do with current debates over worship style?

A few months ago my friend Joshua Villines directed my attention to a critical review of “The Phantom Menace” that is biting, insightful, and very funny. Among other points made is that story and character are among the most important elements of a good film. And all the hundred of millions of dollars worth of computer generated special effects are not a substitute.

The review led to the website of the reviewer Red Letter Media. Which led to an article on movie reviews. Which led to this video called “Low Budget Eye Candy #1″.

LOW BUDGET EYE CANDY #1 from Steven Boone on Vimeo.

Oddly enough Boone makes his points using a clip from “THX 1138″ by George Lucas which for years I have regarded as a classic science-fiction movie of the dystopian genre. Once upon a time George Lucas knew how to use film craft to tell a good story with compelling characters and with a relatively low budget.

What does this have to do with worship?

The congregation which I serve University Baptist Church is going through a difficult time. The senior pastor resigned in October. He used a tremendous amount of pastoral capital aka “chips” to (a) begin a second worship gathering in the (b) “emerging” style in order to (c) attract and communicate the current generation. For the record I supported this move. Many people believe that disagreements over the second gathering were the most important issue leading to the pastor’s resignation.

(I disagree. It was an issue. But maybe 4th or 5th on the list. Anyways.)

A common argument one hears is that churches absolutely have to have a “contemporary” worship service in order to attract younger people including young families with children. Because they do not care for “traditional” worship. The idea that we need to understand the culture of the people among whom we wish to minister is not a bad one. Nor that we need to adjust how we do worship in order to speak to them. Church of the Nations does that too. We use simple English. We follow a very consistent order of worship every Sunday. We sometimes sing in other languages. We adjust our style of worship for people who come here from other countries and have little to no religious background.

But here is the thing. Churches do not need to have “contemporary” worship gatherings in order to attract younger families with children as reasonable as that sounds. There is abundant proof of this.

One of the most thriving churches in Baton Rouge is First United Methodist downtown. A downtown church. With very traditional worship. (Although it is not boring. They have a strong choir and excellent music. Quite a few congregants are professional musicians.) They are busting at the seams. In fact churches which are losing members (for whatever reason) see many of them move to First United Methodist. This includes University Baptist Church and First Baptist Church downtown.

I had the joy of meeting with one of their associate pastors who is a longtime family friend and graduated from Drew Seminary not long ago. “What’s your secret?” She did not really have a clear answer except for the dynamic leadership of their longtime pastor Chris Andrews.

Bob B_ for a long time was part of the ministry of Church of the Nations until last year (when his wife fell asleep in the Lord after battling leukemia for almost a year). He has recently joined South Main Baptist Church in Houston. Which is busting at the seams. And has very traditional worship. I asked him about that specifically.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not against “contemporary” or even “emerging” worship styles. I believe in the need to understand and adjust to the culture of the people among whom you wish to minister in the name of Christ our God. But the idea that we have to have “contemporary” or “emerging” worship because younger people including families with children will not be part of a church with “traditional” worship. That idea just does not hold up.

Tradition is surprisingly attractive.

Ask Anglicans. Ask Roman Catholics. Ask the Orthodox.

Posted in Ministry, Movies and film, Worship and Liturgy | 1 Comment »

Chaim Potok and sermons

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Was listening to NPR in car this morning (yeah yeah I know) and “Writer’s Almanac” with Garrison Keillor came on. It was more interesting than most days.

Ah yes a poem about cleaning up after the dog. Guess who walks the dog in our family? And yes letting everyone see you use the bag is important.

Birthday of Chaim Potok. This got my attention because Potok is one of my favorite writers and I have read most of his books. He is one of the people I draw upon for my theology of the importance of silence. His books also help us understand the Jewish religion. Most of my teachers were Jewish and so I have a special respect and affection for the Jewish religion and people.

Premiere of the opera “Madame Butterfly” by Giacomo Puccini. Did terribly until Puccini made some changes and then presented it again later that year.

And a great quote that every preacher should heed:

A good sermon should be like a woman’s skirt: short enough to arouse interest but long enough to cover the essentials.

Word! From Ronald Knox born this day in 1888.

Today is Ash Wednesday. Today we enter Lent.

Posted in Art, Judaism, Literature, Media, Personal, Sermons | No Comments »

Metropolitan Opera's performance of "Carmen" by Bizet (or) What *is* Carmen?

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Last time took eight to see “Turandot” by Puccini. Fairly full theater. People came up to us with tears in their eyes (I am not making that up) to express how much they appreciate young people coming to see the opera.

This time we had eleven. Theater was packed. And quite a few young people – children and college age. Why was “Carmen” even more popular than “Turandot”? Our international friends said “‘Carmen’ is very famous!” I saw more people from University Baptist Church this time.

To be honest after the first half hour I was a bit embarrassed. “Uh oh. Wonder what our Chinese friends are thinking. Wonder if they wish they had not come. Very very different from ‘Turandot’”. The opening songs are about soldiers hanging around and pawing at Micaela (Barbara Frittoli) and leering at the cigarette girls who sit around wiping sweat from their half-exposed bodies. Real high drama there.

And then you get Carmen (Elena Garanca – whom I saw also in Rossini’s “La Cenerentola”). With cleavage and at least one leg showing at all times. Who is seriously bad news.

If you want her then she does not want you. If you do not want her then she wants you. And if she wants you better watch out!

Si je t’aime, si je t’aime prend garde a toi!

Our humble soldier Don Jose (Roberto Alagna) – who already has a girlfriend – unfortunately attracts the attention of Carmen who trains her wiles on him like a laser beam. Dude you are so dead. It does not take long before Don Jose is making out with Carmen and letting her escape from arrest and planning to get together with her later at a resort.

What the heck is this opera about?!? At first glance it seems dirty and sleazy and slutty. Not at all like “Turandot” in which the passionate love of Calaf breaks through the cold cruelty of the princess Turandot – all very noble virtuous and glorious. This is about a respected soldier and good son with a nice girlfriend who throws it all away because some hot temptress hands him a flower.

Speaking of “love is like a bird”. The first act talks a lot about love – l’amour. But it does not seem to be about love so much as desire or shall we say lust. “I love you” seems to mean not much more than “you’re cute and I want to have sex with you”.

So what is going on here? What is Bizet trying to say? Who – or should we say what – exactly is Carmen?

There are several different approaches I would suggest.

The first is rather simplistic morality play. “Stay away from bad girls”. Something like that. No doubt feminist literary scholars would have something to say about “the patriarchal warnings against the archetypal temptress” motif – and frankly they would be at least partly right. Don Jose has a nice girlfriend who goes to church brings him letters from his momma and won’t even kiss him on the lips. Along comes the hot hussy Carmen with her blazing unrestrained sexuality. Before you know it Don Jose is hanging out with bandits and breaking his momma’s heart and strangling said hussy and getting executed. Bad bad bad. Sort of “Reefer Madness” meets “Fatal Attraction”.

(Yeah I don’t know where that came from either.)

Maybe. But that seems too simplistic.

At one point it suddenly hit me just who or what Carmen is.

Freedom.

She sings about “I will live free or die free”. She represents perhaps the freedom to throw off the constraints of law responsibility and commitment. Don Jose is not just a guy – he is a soldier. He obeys orders and enforces the law. He does not just go off with Carmen – he becomes a bandit. He leaves behind society with its laws and regulations. Perhaps that helps explain the famous habanera “L’amour est un oiseau rebelle”:

Love is a rebellious bird… He has never known law. If you don’t love me I will love you. If I love you – you better watch out!

Carmen will not be imprisoned – no handcuffs or jail for her! Don Jose spends time in jail because he sets her free – but what gets him through that time is the flower Carmen gave him. If you do not love freedom – then freedom will come hunting for you. And if freedom comes after you – better watch out! Don Jose will not live without freedom (Carmen). The opera seems largely about freedom and the desire for freedom.

I will not suggest that freedom is unambiguously good in the opera. What happens when the desire for freedom means you reject duty and obedience and commitment? Freedom yes – but balanced with responsibility and self-control? Perhaps the opera also explores the ambiguity of freedom.

There is another theme which has to do with ethnicity and class. Sure we may fault Carmen for being the temptress. But she is not just a woman. She is a gypsy. A member of an ethnic group – the Roma(ny) – that even today is considered outcast and undesirable in Europe. How else will these people fight back against a (Spanish European) society that rejects them and marginalizes them? Can we blame them when they turn to (a) sex and (b) crime to get what they want – or need? And how noble are these “white” Europeans who are quite happy to get their booze and cigarettes and sex and black market goods from gypsies? And who think torturing and killing bulls is somehow more noble and civilized? Is not the final act with its parade of the different kinds of bullfighter a kind of satire? How silly!

Toreador, toreador!

And notice how the toreador desires and wins Carmen – and transforms her into a proper Spanish lady. Carmen has gone from marginalized outcast gypsy to accepted member of Spanish high society. (I am reminded of how the prostitute civilizes Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh – but cannot quite make the connection.)

One last theme. Fate and free will. This is particularly evident when Don Jose and Carmen are with the bandits in the mountains. Two of the woman consults the cards to find out their fortunes. Wealth and fame. Sounds great. So does Carmen. Death and death. She knows ahead of time that Don Jose will kill her. And no matter how many times she turns the cards the result is the same. Death and death.

Oddly enough she seems resigned to this. “Oh well. Nothing I can do. The cards say I am going to die. Guess I better just follow the script to its end”. She convinces herself that she does not have the freedom – free will – to make different choices and change course. In a way she brings about the very “fate” she fears. One is reminded of how Voldemort creates his own downfall in the Harry Potter books because he is obsessed with a misunderstood prophecy.

So perhaps there are many different themes and issues that drive the opera – all at the same time. Women and sexuality. Race and class. Freedom and its ambiguity. Fate and free will.

Okay – enough about the opera. What about the performance?

Outstanding of course. The music was energetic and delightful. The acting solid. The singing exceptional. And the pas de deux (sp?) that opened each act masterful. I did find the physicality of the performance a bit distracting. Woman getting pawed and groped. Don Jose lying down on Carmen whose legs are spread wide. Pushing hitting fighting. Even Rene Fleming commented and asked if the singers felt bruised after their performance.

The sets were a bit drab but otherwise brilliant – giant rotating circular walls?!? Now it’s a jail… now it’s a town square. Now it’s a town square… now it’s the inside of a bullfighting ring. Amazing. Clearly only the best work for the Met.

My favorite part by far was when Rene Fleming was interviewing Escamillo (performed by… don’t seem to have his name available). Apparently the bass performer was sick and this guy got a call that morning at like 10:00 a.m. “Hey um we need you to sing Escamillo at the Met today”. You could not tell this man had filled in on such short notice. That alone earns my respect.

Even better she asked how he became an opera singer. Well apparently he used to be a certified accountant in his native New Zealand. Around age 30 or 31 decided he wanted to sing opera. Gotta love it. We all had a good laugh.

“I’m sick of this pastoring gig. Think I’ll join the opera”.

Toreador, toreador! L’amour t’attend!

Hey. A guy can dream.

Posted in Opera, Sexuality, Society and Culture, Uncategorized | No Comments »

REVIEW – "Moon" (2009)

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?

It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.

For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.

The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.

“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.

The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).

Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.

But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.

I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.

But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).

But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?

The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***

(more…)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Science Fiction | No Comments »

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

Posted in Media, Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Politics, Propaganda, Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

REVIEW – "The Princess and the Frog"

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

Yes I saw it. Almost said “you can go without me”. Glad I went.

A tradition in my family has always been to go see a movie on a holiday – like Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s. So we went to see recent Disney release “The Princess and the Frog”.

It was delightful. Especially when you compare it to the stream of movies from Hollywood that basically insult the audience. If you pay attention there are a few welcome “conservative” themes and messages in “The Princess and the Frog”. It will be interesting to see how it fares at the box office compared to the other left-leaning fare.

***WARNING – A FEW MILD SPOILERS***

Prince Naveen is the rich aristocrat who is no longer very rich. All he wants is to avoid work and have fun.

His servant Lawrence is the one who envies what Naveen has. And wants to steal it through trickery and deception.

And Tiana is the one who has a dream. And believes the way to achieve her dream is through hard work and saving every dollar she can.

Imagine that! If you want something – you work for it. Rather than expect the government or *ahem* the forces of evil – represented by the Shadow Man – to give you what you want by taking it someone else.

There may be some subtle commentary on “haves versus have-less”. The film does not appear to criticize Big Daddy for being so wealthy. In fact it recognizes the simple fact that rich people hire and pay other people to do things like make dresses (Tiana’s mother Eudora) for their spoiled daughters or make beignets (Tiana) for a masked Mardi Gras ball. Big Daddy is rich but he is generous and his wealth supports such cultural activities as a Mardi Gras parade.

And – trying not to give away too much here – what happens to Doctor Facilier aka Shadow Man in the end? He plays with the forces of darkness – “friends on the other side” – and ultimately he pays the price. There are consequences for messing with spiritual forces of evil.

This is not to suggest the movie is full of orthodox Christian theology. There are no references to God or Christ or scripture. At most we get “good magic” in the person of Mama Odie versus “bad magic” in the person of Doctor Facilier (whose name oddly enough means “Doctor Make-easy”). And several times characters seem to “pray” to a star in the night sky. This is not a criticism. Just trying to recognize how religion and spirituality are portrayed.

In a way I find refreshing how the film addresses(?) race relations. People of darker skin can have genuine friendship with people of lighter skin. Although it does not ignore altogether that racial tensions can and do exist – such as when the bankers refer to Tiana’s “background”.

What is interesting is that Disney has gone back to old fashioned drawn animation. I thought they had shut down their drawn animation department in order to focus exclusively on computer animation. My argument then as well as now is “it’s not the computer animation – it’s the story stupid”. Disney seems finally to get that point. But drawn animation might strike some as ugly and primitive compared to “Toy Story” or “Up”. The comparison is unfair. But not if you compare it to the work of Hiyao Miyazaki or even the exceptionally beautiful “Snow White”.

Critics often focus on the music – and sure enough characters in the movie often break into song. Are they “memorable” or Oscar-winning? Only time will tell. Some of the songs are quite catchy – such as “Dig A Little Deeper” which my wife used in her sermon this morning.

Finally – Louisiana.

The story is set in New Orleans and the Louisiana bayous. Having lived in the south for a while I am sensitive to how “southern accents” are portrayed – you would think every southerner speaks in a South Carolina drawl. Most of the accents and speech patterns in “The Princess and the Frog” sound correct. Some are not quite right. But in order to establish the setting – New Orleans and Louisiana – one must expect some degree of exaggeration for the sake of emphasis.

One concern(?) is that people who do not live in Louisiana might not appreciate all the inside jokes. Like when Ray the Cajun firefly introduces all the members of his immense extended family. Or when Ray asks Naveen and Tiana where they are from – the answer is perhaps only to Louisianans one of the funniest lines in the entire movie (the audience erupted in laughter). Or how the name of the love of Ray’s life is “Evangeline”.

Overall an animated film I can heartily recommend.

Posted in Movies and film | No Comments »

"Avatar" and other movies that make you throw up(?)

Friday, November 27th, 2009

I have my reasons for not liking James Cameron. But the concept of and trailers for the new “Avatar” movie did get my interest. However came across an early anonymous review (caveat lector – how reliable is this?) which included the following:

The new technology they’ve been using to eliminate the headaches and sickness conducive to old 3D tech has not been used properly in the action scenes throughout Avatar.  The problem is with cutting in between 3D focal points and perspective – the mind cannot adjust to it without a buffer – thus, Avatar is literally vomit inducing.

This particularly gets my attention because of an experience my family had a couple years ago. In Upstate New York to visit my mom -my sisters and my brother and his family were all there. We have a long family tradition of seeing movies together especially on holidays. So our July 4th movie was the disappointing “Hancock” starring Will Smith.

My brother and his daughter had to cover their eyes for most of the film because the constantly moving camera (shaking around, moving in a circle around the target, and so on) made them extremely nauseous. Basically two hours of misery and not being able to enjoy the movie. Did not seem to bother anyone else in the theater. But apparently some people are susceptible to that sort of thing – such as one encounters in many first-person video games. That his daughter had the same problem suggests it might be genetic.

I wonder how much movie makers are aware of this problem. I wanted to tell the theater manager about this so they might include some sort of warning to film-goers. Of course they might hesitate because it could hurt ticket sales.

H/T Big Hollywood and Guardian (UK).

Posted in Movies and film, Personal | No Comments »

Why have *you* not been to a Met Live (opera) broadcast?

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
Right costumes and set - performers look different

Right costumes and set - performers look different

We were blown away. So much that we forgot completely that we had missed the first half hour.

When I looked up the time for the live broadcast of “Turandot” by the Metropolitan Opera it said “1:00 p.m.” So I told everyone I would pick them up around 12:15 p.m. And meet at the movie theater by 12:30 p.m.

Can anyone figure out already what I forgot?

Eastern versus Central time.

Locally the show began at 12:00 noon. I was horrified and deeply upset. Our Chinese friends who came said “it doesn’t matter”. By the time we got in and sat down everyone was trying to dissuade Calaf from his foolish attempt to court the princess. *Brang!* tolls the gong three times. Calaf is committed. End of act one.

It was phenomenal. The sets. The music. The acting. The singing. The story. I alternately laughed and yes cried a couple times. How could one not cry when Liu confesses her love for Calaf and then dies? How could one not cry this time with joy when Calaf and Turandot now stand before the imperial throne in love and triumph?

The women were the strongest – Marina Poplavskaya as Liu and Maria Guleghina as Turandot.

Forgive me but I thought Marcello Giordini was merely good in the role of Calaf. His rendition of “Nessun dorma” seems clipped and strangely flat. I prefer other renditions such as that of Luciano Pavarotti who allowed his notes to gently fade away so you are never quite sure when you no longer hear them and who pronounced the Italian words more smoothly.

I have enjoyed also the “behind the scenes” and interviews between acts. Such as with two trumpet players. The very young Latvian conductor Andris Nelsons. With Giordini and Guleghina – I was genuinely moved by the obvious affection and friendship between them. And with Charles Anthony who sang the role of the emperor – it was his 2900+ performance! He first began to perform in 1954 – more than 50 years on stage! And he shared a few touching stories of his most memorable experiences. How can one not love someone who so loves their craft and is so committed to the art?

A few in the audience of mostly “grey hairs” were moved to see several young people enjoying the opera – including my own two teenage daughters. “What brings you here today?” one gentleman asked. There is a palpable camaraderie between even strangers – the bond that already exists is a love for opera.

My Chinese friends said they recognized a few of the tunes as old traditional Chinese songs. And also agreed strongly that the costumes and sets all reflect the Ming dynasty. The story may be set in “legendary times” but someone did their homework to make it seem authentic.

One of the greatest experiences of the year 2009 for me. And upon leaving the manager gave everyone a voucher for a free ticket – because there were a few technical glitches during the performance (sound and even video occasionally cut out – it was a bit distracting). I feel badly for the theater to take such a hit – but that is like someone handing you $22 which is a lot of money.

Bravo!

Posted in Opera, Personal | No Comments »

The president is a totalitarian space lizard here to eat us?

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

Sorry about not posting more. Been super busy since the senior pastor of the American church resigned. Don’t get me wrong – in a way I am enjoying my work more than usual. Very similar to what we experienced the last time without a senior pastor.

Hope

From the Chicago Tribune:

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration — one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don’t you show some respect?!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader’s origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait — did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who’s come here to eat us?

I was so looking forward to the remake of the television series “V”.

I am now barely able to contain my looking forward to the remake of the television series “V”. Those who claim they are here to help us and save us. Those we idolize and onto whom we project our hopes. Turn out to be utter disasters. Worse – they turn out to be out to reduce us to poor miserable slaves of a collectivist state run by the socio-political elite.

Count me among the Resistance.

Posted in Art, Media, Politics | 1 Comment »

The glory of human freedom in "Minority Report"

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Last night was planning to get to bed early but “Minority Report” was on. Tried to find the dvd version – was the very first dvd we owned a gift from two ministry volunteers – but no joy. So just watched it on television until midnight.

There are few things that get under my skin quite so much as losing something.

You remember “Minority Report” right? Science-fiction movie directed by Steven Spielberg based on a short story by the great Philip K Dick. Have you noticed how many successful movies have been based on stories by Dick? (As well as a couple real turkies.)

As I watched I realized not for the first time what an exceptional movie it is. No matter how goofie you think Tom Cruise is dang does he deliver an excellent performance in that film. Notice the constant theme of “seeing” and “eyes” and “not seeing”. Even a passing advertisement in the background reinforces the theme.

Can you see?

In a nutshell the story-now-film addresses directly freedom and guilt. Can you arrest and imprison someone because they were going to commit murder – but have not done so yet?

Anderton (Cruise) rolls a ball around the table which Witwer (Colin Farrell) catches.

“Why did you catch it?”

“Because it was going to fall”.

“How do you know that?”

The argument of course is facile. Human beings are not balls. But Anderton somehow gets away with it and Witwer does not push back at that time.

There are two moments of utter glory – when you realize what the issue is. Do human beings have choice aka free will?

The precogs see a premeditate murder – 36 hours away. The killer is – to his shock and horror – John Anderton himself. The victim is someone he has never seen or met or heard of. But sure enough… eventually… he finds the man and concludes yes he must kill him.

Agatha – the most gifted of the precognitives whom Anderton has liberated in order to gain information from her – says “you have a choice”. We do not believe it. Anderton does not believe it. They have already seen it. He is going to kill Leo Crow.

But somehow – and the film does not really quite explain why or how – Anderton does not pull the trigger. His watch alarm goes off. What the precognitives foresaw does not happen.

He has a choice. And Anderton made that choice – to arrest but not to kill.

(And at the end Burgess chooses not to kill Anderton but instead himself. The opposite of what the precognitives foresaw.)

The issue of human freedom and free will is one that has become increasingly important to me. It comes up a great deal in the literature of Tolkien. And a cornerstone of Orthodox theology is its insistence that humans have free will. They do not deny the sovereignty of God or providence or grace. But never ever can such teachings eclipse the reality of human freedom.

(Some of those who read this website lean toward Calvinist or “reformed” theology. My intent is not to insult or start an argument. I am not arguing against something so much as arguing for.)

Think about other books by Philip Dick. Which often deal with “what does it mean to be human?” and “what truly defines who we are?” Dick – fairly consistently – seems to argue in his stories and novels that we are defined by the concrete choices we make. (Think about “Total Recall”. Quaid is “fated” to go back to being a scumball criminal agent. But he refuses. He has already chosen a different path. And he does not go back.)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Religion, Theology | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries