Mel Brooks Monday: The Producers

Posted on October 21, 2014 by Kyle

Along with the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Billy Wilder and Howard Hawks, no other filmmaker has had a larger influence on the history of movie comedy than Mel Brooks. Throughout his impressive body of work, Brooks deftly mixed socio-political commentary, pop culture references, slapstick and the kind of deep, guttural belly laughs that can only be produced by a true comedy genius.

I recently came across a complete collection of Brooks’ films, and am curious to see which of his films hold up best. Which of his films deserve the title of “comedy classic,” and which ones are best forgotten? Join me for a (hopefully) hilarious retrospective every week for Mel Brooks Monday!

All of Mel Brooks’ 12 films in one convenient collection.

Although Mel Brooks is perhaps best known for his various spoofs and genre parodies, his first film is actually one of the most original comedies of all time. Released in 1968, The Producers is, in some ways, still shocking by today’s standards. It’s the dirtiest, most politically incorrect movie I can imagine being made at that time. Like Billy Wilder’s Some Like It Hot, I watch it today and wonder, “how did they get away with that?”

The relatively thin (though not by Mel Brooks standards) story follows Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel), a struggling Broadway producer hungry for his next big hit. To make money for his plays, he has taken to (ahem) “entertaining” rich, randy old ladies. Soon, accountant Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder), who has been hired to do Max’s books, arrives at his doorstep. During a hypothetical ramble, Bloom convinces Max that, through some “creative accounting,” they can make more money with a Broadway flop than a hit. With dollar signs in his eyes, Max coerces Bloom into helping him find the worst play ever written, even though it’s, you know, technically illegal.

Many are probably familiar with this story through the musical re-make starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane. The songs are catchy, but the only real version in my mind is the original. That is, in major part, to the brilliant lead performances. Mostel’s gregarious blowhard is perfectly pitted against Wilder’s neurotic, sheltered hypochondriac. These guys have never been better, committing two of the funniest performances ever seen on screen. Wilder is probably best known for playing the warm, gentle Willy Wonka, but I much prefer his edgy, comically uninhibited performance here.

The Producers is a brilliant introduction to the madcap insanity suffused with potent cultural commentary that is the hallmark of Brooks’ best work.

The duo’s eventual choice, Springtime for Hitler, is every bit as jaw-droppingly offensive as it sounds (song lyrics include Don’t be Stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party), but I think the very Jewish Brooks realized how therapeutic laughing at Nazis could be, even when the atrocities they committed were only a few decades behind and still very much in the forefront of global consciousness. A roomful of actors (including beach bod Hitler) auditioning for the role of the fuhrer is probably funnier than it has any right to be.

This madcap classic is bolstered by one of the funniest supporting casts in movie history. Kenneth Mars is perfect as Franz Liebkind, the German writer determined to “clear the fuhrer’s name” through his work. Christopher Hewes kills as “eccentric” theater director Roger De Bris, and Dick Shawn as LSD, the play’s “perfect” a.k.a. “worst” Hitler? Well, that’s something I wouldn’t dare ruin for anyone who hasn’t seen it.

Several Mel Brooks staples could be seen in his debut film, although some of them would never be used to quite the same success again. His trademark mixture of gleeful subversion and old-fashioned, almost retro fun is in full swing here. The occasionally shocking content never gets in the way of the humor, proving the age-old rule that being offensive is okay—as long as it’s funny. It also gave us a good dose of Brooks’ Shakespearean sophistication, from comical asides to biblical allusions and grand speeches. We can always tell that there is a fiercely intelligent mind underneath the potty humor.

The Producers remains Mel Brooks’ most manically unpredictable movie, maybe because it’s not exactly skewering a genre; there are no jokes we expect, so everything remains a delightful surprise. But the film, thankfully, still has plenty to mock, from the money-hungry world of Broadway production to Nazism to the “high class” clientele that would pay to see a play called Springtime for Hitler in the first place. To say anything else about the plot, characters or jokes would spoil the experience for anyone seeing this true comedy classic for the first time. I say stick to the original and avoid the inferior remake.

Virgin Territory is a refreshing look at modern relationships

Posted on August 17, 2014 by Kyle

I know what you’re probably thinking: a show about virgins? On MTV? Yikes. That was my initial reaction when I heard the network responsible for the likes of Jersey Shore and Teen Mom would be airing a reality show that follows a rotating cast of young adults who have not yet had sex.

I expected the show to not only feel forced, but for MTV to present these hard-working young people as freaks, as those who have waited too long and just want to “lose it” as quickly as possible. And, while some obnoxious MTV-isms certainly remain, I have been pleasantly surprised by the show’s refusal to put these complex people into boxed categories or present them as walking clichés. The show shares with us the lives of those seeking real, authentic relationships, whether they include sex or not, and I think my generation especially can learn a great deal from them in a culture that, as one cast member says early on in the show, “throws around sex like a basketball.”

As anyone who has called themselves virgins for any significant length of their adult life can attest, Virgin Territory contains a great deal of talk about sex and very little of the actual deed. In fact, in the first five episodes, only two have actually “lost it.” Somewhat ironically, the first one to lose it on the show was the one who waited until her wedding night.

Lisa, a Christian who waited until her wedding night, is the first to actually “lose it” on the show.

Lisa is a strong Christian who is waiting for her upcoming wedding night to have sex with her fiancé, Nick. Hers is the most traditional religious outlook on the show so far, and it’s refreshing to see that MTV took her story seriously in all of its glorious complexity. To put it simply, waiting for the wedding night is difficult even for a committed Christian. Lisa and Nick are both excited and apprehensive; in a wonderfully candid scene, Lisa asks Nick if he’ll want to do it “20 times a day;” his prototypical male response: “Why not?” Lisa’s story also first reveals the show’s complexity when it comes to sharing the cast members’ full lives, and their struggles outside of relationships. Lisa’s father has recently fallen ill and she’s not sure he will be able to make it to the wedding. A scene where she chats with her father about her anxieties while he lies in a hospital bed is a tearjerker, but it never feels emotionally manipulative.

Lisa’s wedding does come, and it is a lovely affair. When she describes the “morning after,” it is both adorable and a little gross (let’s just say there was lubricant involved). Lisa’s story is over after the first episode, but many other cast members don’t have it quite so easy.

Next we are introduced to the glorious enigma that is Dominique, an energetic 19-year-old black woman from Maryland. She loves the nightlife, is a bit of a party animal and is constantly hit on by guys. But her motto remains, “no ringy, no dingy.” Her reason for waiting until marriage involves the type of family life she grew up in. She comes from a broken home and is still dealing with the repercussions of her parents’ divorce. Her cousin is also a single mom, and she has seen her fair share of unstable and broken families as a result of sex being taken a bit too casually. “I don’t want to repeat the cycle,” she says.

But she has her own relationship issues; she’s “too picky,” and seems to cling to her romantic ideals of finding the perfect guy. I love Dominique’s story because she shows that people are saving their virginity for marriage for reasons other than religion. There’s no indication that she comes from any sort of Christian household, but she is seeking authentic relationships and a stable family life. That includes reconnecting with her increasingly distant mother and avoiding turning away a new romantic interest who seems very respectful of her decision to wait. Her story ends with her still a virgin, but she leaves us with a finishing line worth reflecting on. “I’m very comfortable in my sexuality,” she says, “but that does not mean I’m sleeping with anyone.” Our culture broadly paints adult virgins as people who are insecure with their sexuality in some way, but Dominique shows us that we can be confident in our bodies regardless of our sexual status.

My favorite long-running story so far, and the one I most readily connect with, has been that of Luke, a 22-year-old Christian attending Liberty University and getting ready to graduate. His story covers all the beats of going to a Christian university; the impossibly attractive women and the incredible temptation that comes from the casual college hookup culture that permeates even a college as religiously grounded as Liberty. It helps, perhaps, that Luke’s father is a pastor, and is constantly encouraging him to stay physically pure in his relationships. Luke talks about his “future wife; I don’t know who she is, but I’m excited to meet her.” But Luke is a bit of a commitment-phobe, and has a reputation as a player, because he’s kissed a lot of girls. “If I wasn’t a Christian, there’s no way I’d be a virigin,” he says. He does admit he has had blow jobs that he has “regretted.”

Luke is a Christian committed to saving sex until marriage, but that doesn’t mean the road is easy.

Luke’s story is refreshing for several reasons, the major being the fact that he is a MAN who is abstaining from sex until marriage. Our culture puts a high value on female virginity, but not on male virginity. Luke also shows us how important religious convictions can play in fundamentally altering the way we live our lives. It seems people like to paint Christianity in particular as something that has little impact on our behavior, but if we look past the hypocrisy, we see people like Luke, who is seeking a truly God-centered relationship, even as multiple girls have offered to “take” his virginity. His adherence to his convictions is de-stigmatized and given the full weight and respect it deserves. Bravo, MTV, for showing us that, indeed, real men can be virgins too.

Luke does overcome his tendencies as a “player” and finds himself in a stable three-month relationship with Madeline, who writes him letters expressing her excitement over being “the future Mrs. Luke Conger.” Yes, Christian kids tend to move fast when it comes to serious relationships. Really fast. Luke buys her a “promise ring,” expressing his commitment both to her and his decision to abstain from sex until marriage. But his story is not over, and I really do hope he can fight his tendency to play the field and the temptation that seems to surround him; he’s done a good job so far. May he continue to follow the Bible verse from 1 Corinthians 6:20 that he has tattooed on his back: “Do you not know that you were bought with a price? Therefore, honor God with your body.”

No one else on the show seems particularly interested in honoring God with their bodies, but that doesn’t mean that they’re keen on following their peers by treating sex as no big deal. Kyle, the other male featured on the show, takes his virginity seriously, though he does want to lose it. A 20-year-old built weightlifter going to school in Florida, he plays along with his friends who seem to exemplify the “men think about sex every 3 seconds” cliché. Kyle’s conflict is unique because he has never told his friends that he is a virgin. Unlike them, he “wants it to be special.” He describes himself as a more romantic type of guy, but he really has no idea what to do around women. In a hilariously honest moment, he describes buying condoms and “making balloon animals out of them.”

Kyle tries to take a girl out and “treat her nice,” but his romantic tendencies clash with his awkwardness, and a moonlit horse carriage ride does not go as planned. Dating can be really awkward, especially someone who desires to be intentional in his relationships, and many conversations and feelings can remain uncomfortably unresolved. He says he’s waited because he had to take care of his dad, who was ill and eventually died, and he’s had a hard time dealing with his dad’s loss.

I initially found Kyle’s arc one of the more engaging ones, but I think he betrays his character by the end. He had hoped to have sex with a girl from back home, Amanda, for some time. He eventually does, and his morning after confessional is kind of adorable, but then he drops her like a hot potato and takes off back to Florida. It admittedly tears him up to do this, but he tells her he doesn’t desire a long-distance relationship, and wants to go live his life. He says his first time was “extremely special,” but it apparently wasn’t with a girl special enough to keep. It’s disappointing that Kyle seems to have given into peer pressure just so he could “have a real story” to tell his friends.

Kyle in one of his candid webcam confessionals.

Mikaela is the kind of girl you want to hug and tell that everything is going to be okay. She is “actively looking” to lose her virginity, and her friends (none of them virgins) talk about sex quite a lot. But she is continually disappointed by her relationships. The group takes a road trip from their home in Oregon to L.A. where Mikaela hopes to meet someone, but the fake, sex-obsessed guys they find at the L.A. party scene are a huge turnoff. Maybe it’s the obnoxious MTV-style over editing and slow-mo designed to try and convince us that everyone is having so much fun, but I wouldn’t want to run into any of these creeps in the supermarket, let alone a dark, booze-soaked club. It really shows the caliber of people that frequent these places, and it’s probably not the best place to look for someone interested in a serious, respectful long-term relationship (though I’m sure it has happened).

Mikaela’s story ends relatively uneventfully, with nary a boyfriend in sight, and I can’t begin to describe how awesome that is. Hollywood and the porn industry have conditioned young people to expect a satisfying climax to all of our story arcs (pun definitely intended), but Mikaela’s story feels so real because so much of relationships (and life in general) is waiting in that uncomfortable middle. And, encouragingly, Mikaela is hardly dismayed by the prospect. “When it happens, it happens,” she says, which may sound pretty laissez-faire, but actually strikes me as a profound counter-cultural statement, aimed not at sex itself but at the prospect of finding the right guy first. “I don’t think virgins should be made out to be a big deal—like we’re an alien species or something,” she says.

I hope shows like Virgin Territory can help people take Mikaela’s sentiment to heart. I’d like to think that we young adults are all seeking authentic relationships, but our culture has conditioned us to take the easy way out by engaging in a harmful “hook-up culture” that treats bodies as commodities and souls as another casually tossed undergarment. The thing that everyone on the show has in common is the desire to find and maintain true, lasting relationships apart from sex. Believe it or not, that statement is not an oxymoron. I would not go so far as to say the cast members are role models, but they are real people whose reasons for waiting are multifaceted. It helps that the show they’re on is sometimes funny, sometimes sad and sometimes awkward; but, most importantly, it takes every aspect of these virgins’ lives seriously. That’s something I never expected from MTV, but I’m glad I was pleasantly surprised.

So do yourself a favor by turning off Naked Dating and watching Virgin Territory instead. It airs Wednesdays at 10 p.m. on MTV. Check out the pilot episode below.

The prophetic imagination of Foster the People

Posted on July 4, 2014 by Kyle

“For beauty I will gladly feed my life into the mouths of rainbows, their technicolor teeth cutting prisms and smiling benevolently on the pallid hue of the working class hero.”-From the Supermodel album cover

Rock music is no stranger to songwriters who double as modern-day prophets. From Bob Dylan to the Beatles, Led Zeppelin to Jimi Hendrix, Marvin Gaye, U2, Pearl Jam and Mumford & Sons, one could argue that many truly memorable modern songwriters have a bit of the gift of prophecy indwelling within them.

The latest and, for my money, most refreshing addition to that tradition comes from an unexpected source. The alternative rock band Foster the People already put themselves on the map with their first album “Torches,” spearheaded by the effervescent, catchy and deceptively dark single “Pumped up Kicks.” But it’s their second album, Supermodel, released in March, that truly catches the prophetic imagination in unique and sometimes startling ways. If it appeared that Foster was headed toward instant super-stardom, their sophomore effort will likely perplex or even anger some fans of their earlier work; and that’s just one reasons why Supermodel is one of the most complex, challenging and, yes, prophetic works of art to emerge from contemporary rock music in quite a long time.

In discussing the prophetic tradition, it’s important to define what we mean by “prophetic.” In the history of humanity, prophecy goes back a long way. Nostradamus made prophecy chic in the 15^th century, but the most famous examples of prophecy stem from the biblical Old Testament prophets, in particular Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.

Prophetic voices may differ on the source of their inspiration, but one thing they all share is a dissatisfaction with their surrounding culture. Often, this leads to a warning, an exhortation that if we do not change the course we have set for ourselves (and, in the biblical example, turn ourselves toward God), calamity in some form will ensue. “As I live, declares the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, o house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11).

In that same vein, modern prophetic songwriters write lyrics that dream of a better world, that convey a dissatisfaction with the way things are and perhaps even dream of ways we can make things better.

The thrilling thing about Foster is that their prophetic voice is often filtered through the explicit language of old-school biblical prophecy. Their vision is uncompromising, sometimes even impenetrable upon first listen. Such an approach can be off-putting but, much like the prophets of the Old Testament, their message is profound and well worth exerting a bit of intellectual effort for.

That effort is put into overdrive on Supermodel’s first track, “Are You What You Want to Be?” which finds the band experimenting with Afro-Cuban inspired chants and drum beats. Any illusion that the band is gunning for another easy-listening, radio-friendly hit is shattered by lead singer Mark Foster’s staggered lyric. “The right words in the hands of dissidents with the fire/Will rip apart the marrow from the bone of the liars/Well I’m afraid of saying too much and ending a martyr/But even more so I’m afraid to face God and say I was a coward, yeah.” The song speaks of waiting for “revolution,” which, in the spirit of prophecy, is a very anti-establishment thing to say.

But what exactly is Foster rebelling against? Foster gives us an idea in a revealing interview with the L.A. Times.

“For me, a lot of the record is about Western culture, consumerism and the ugly side of capitalism,” Foster says. “I don’t want to hit you over the head with it, but those are the major topics. One thing I find really interesting is our worship of celebrity or politicians. We love to put people on pedestals. Look at reality shows. These people become giant stars. I find that fascinating. ‘Supermodel,’ for me, represents the age we are living in.”

Foster’s revolution may be cloaked in violent language, but their desire appears to be to increase understanding, creating a quiet revolution by rejecting the vanity inherent in the cult of celebrity and instead focusing on the “biggest question,” and it all starts with deciding “Are you what you want to be?”

The band’s philosophical inquiry grows more explicit in perhaps the album’s high point: “Ask Yourself.” The song suggests that we can’t do our part in making the world a better place if we resign ourselves to simply dream big; being who we want to be takes something more. “And you say that dreamers always get what they desire/But I’ve found the more I want the less I’ve got/Is this the life you’ve been waiting for/Or are you hoping that you’ll be where you want with a little more?” The subject of the song “Never needed the proof/Just followed the rules,” but found that “I’m always falling behind/Just floating the lines.”

But human endeavors to improve ourselves can only take us so far, if “Coming of Age” is any indication. In the prophetic tradition, Foster says that we cannot find true peace within ourselves because we are, in so many words, wicked. In biblical prophecy, this condition is more directly referred to as “sin,” a concept songwriters have been utterly fascinated with ever since the first guitar chord was struck. If anything, it’s a bitter answer to the last song’s charge that hard work alone leads to improvement. “You know I’ve tried to live without regrets/I’m always moving forward and not looking back/But I tend to leave a trail of dead while I’m moving ahead.” Lyrics like this are a rejection of philosophies like Buddhism, which say that we can reach salvation (or at least inner peace) by searching within ourselves. Our default state is failure after failure after failure; and such seemingly fruitless striving can take its toll.

The eerie “Never Mind” serves as the band’s rejection of moral relativism, or the idea that an absolute “Truth” is unobtainable and therefore not worth pursuing. “You have your truth and I have mine,” as the mantra goes. Foster expresses his confusion over this muddled philosophical view. “Yeah it’s hard to know the truth/In this post-modernist view/Where absolutes are seen as relics/And laughed out of the room/And I’m scared to say your name.” The band is concerned about a culture where they fear to even mention God’s name due to the fact that they may offend someone whose “truth” doesn’t cop to the idea of a deity.

In the album’s trippiest track, the seemingly drug-induced fever dream “Pseudologia Fantastica,” the band goes further in calling out post-modernist thought as “Another weekend massacre of opinion” before calling to memory some of the most powerful and challenging words Jesus Christ ever spoke. “Don’t be afraid of the knife/Sometimes you have to cut the limb to survive.” In Matthew chapter 18, Jesus was referring metaphorically to cutting off anything in our lives that may cause us to sin; Foster seem to be referencing a more philosophical rejection of anything or anyone that sacrifices a desire for ultimate truth on the altar of opinion.

“A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying the Moon” offers the band’s most challenging lyrics, as well as the deepest philosophical subtexts. It’s here where their use of direct biblical language is most obvious. Foster goes directly after those phony people who do things for show and talk about nothing but trivial matters. I’m coming for you giants and your liars and your chariots of fire/You charmers with your anecdotes have started to show your true colors.” The language gets even more old-school. “We’ve been crying for a leader to speak like the old prophets/ The blood of the forgotten wasn’t spilled without a purpose, or was it?” It seems to me that Foster is clamoring for more prophetic voices to speak the truths that no one else wants to hear. Looking at the history of prophetic music, it doesn’t seem like there’s a lack of people with wisdom to impart, but, rather, a lack of reception from the people who need to not only hear their messages, but be transformed by them.

The album’s last two songs drive its message home powerfully. “The Truth” reaffirms the idea that there is a Truth (singular) even while “floating within your walls of opinion.” The song goes on: “There is a Truth, there is a light if you’d follow me there/I’ve been searching for the directions and/I’m convinced the world doesn’t know what it needs/There is a hope for the hopeless/I can promise you that.” The band again takes the emphasis off of our own actions to “discover” what life means, and rejects the idea that the object of our searching is forever out of reach. “The truth stands in the end/While you’re deciding what to do.”

The soft, pleasant acoustic album closer “Fire Escape” is actually the album’s most bitterly ironic song. It’s an outraged cry to the band’s hometown of L.A., a place of “pimps and prostitutes” who “wave you down at stopping signs.” Foster sings, “Los Angeles, I’ve been waiting for you/To pick yourself up and change.” The song repeats the refrain: “Save yourself, save yourself, yourself.” Of course, the city can’t save itself from its wickedness, just as we can’t save ourselves from ours. When the troubles of this world turn on the heat, we think we can jump out of the fire escape unsinged, but the rest of the album has shown that attempting to save ourselves is a fruitless exercise that leads to pain and defeat. So, the biggest question the album leaves us with is, if we can’t save ourselves, who can?

Supermodel is already an underrated album critically, mostly because it does not feature a catchy radio-friendly counterpart to “Pumped up Kicks.” That’s a great song, and Torches is a great album, but Supermodel takes the listener to places I never thought they could go. Not every song is immediately catchy, but every song is, in its own way, essential to the band’s inspiring contribution to the imagination of the prophetic voice.

In a philosophical slap in the face to most popular music, Foster the People says things are not okay, we are not okay, and our post-modern culture’s search for ultimate meaning is so grounded in the individual self (just think of all the popular songs that seem to find ultimate meaning in romantic love) that it has lost nearly all of its value. Mark Foster contemplated this as the band’s popularity grew. He told the L.A. Times, “I lived in a one-bedroom apartment with no kitchen. I lived paycheck to paycheck. Then suddenly my life changed. We had people helping us. We had money. We could see the world. I traveled and saw how other people lived, and it left me brokenhearted.”

“I felt guilty for how my life had changed.”

Our culture places a high priority on finding a truth, but belittles the idea of the Truth, with a capital T. What is that bigger Truth, and what is our part to play in it? I believe that bigger Truth rests in God himself, and I have a sneaking suspicion Foster does as well. Nevertheless, a culture that refuses to even ask that question is living blindfolded, stumbling around in the dark and headed for self-destruction. And, if we find out someday that Mark Foster was correct, and we chose to ignore his pleas, at least he can be comforted by the fact that no one ever listened to Ezekiel, either.

Confessions of a Christian film critic: A response

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Kyle

“I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.” John 12:46

As a Christian who aspires to write about movies for a wide audience, Jesus’ words in John hold special resonance for me. Like humanity’s endless struggle between good and evil, the movies offer a powerful interplay between light and dark. In a movie theater, we may sit in darkness for a time, but the light of the projector lifts us up out of the darkness. This interplay of light and shadow is especially powerful for the Christian who desires to write about film.

Thus, Washington Post film critic Ann Hornaday’s essay “Confessions of a Christian Film Critic” comes to me as something of a revelation. It’s a candid, honest, and reflective account of what it means to be a follower of Christ and a lover of movies, and the challenges of writing for a secular audience.

But, as the great religion writer Terry Mattingly, a mentor and former professor of mine, points out, this is the confession of a liberal Christian film critic, specifically, an Episcopalian. Mattingly asks what the same essay would look like if it were written by a conservative religious believer. As someone who hails from the non-denominational evangelical tradition, I thought I would attempt to answer that question. Join me as I explore a response by, of course, asking more questions (Jesus did a lot of that), looking to areas in which I agree with Ms. Hornaday as well as points of contention.

HONESTY IS SUCH A LONELY WORD

I believe that God can speak through both secular and religious filmmakers to deliver messages of great power and truth. I also believe that God’s presence can be completely absent from a movie; film can be used for great evil as well as great good. Hornaday certainly believes this too, but, as a respected journalist, she is careful to never let her biases alienate her readers.

She describes “the journalistic habit of not allowing my personal biases to surface, thereby inappropriately using my work as a religious platform and alienating those readers who don’t share my faith or have no faith at all. Those individuals have every right to read a movie review or essay without feeling sermonized, excluded or disrespected.”

The most important aspect of a critic’s work is honesty. And I believe there are times where a Christian critic must speak out against something he/she finds reprehensible or antithetical to God, even if it might end up excluding some readers. That would involve letting at least some personal biases come to light. A recent example is Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street (which Hornaday was not a fan of either). Although not one of Scorsese’s best, the movie is well made. But, the film’s glamorous depiction of sex and drug use gave me a headache. Christians are often called to turn away from the things of this world, and I certainly was turned away by this movie. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I was not a believer, but I am; how can I ignore a “personal bias” when it changes my entire perception of a film’s quality? Of course, this doesn’t explain my undying love for films like Pulp Fiction and A Clockwork Orange. I admit my religious protestations are not always consistent. But honest critics may find it difficult to separate their religious worldview from how they felt about a film; and that’s exactly as it should be.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

I greatly admire Hornaday’s increasingly strong—and very Christian— stance against senseless violence:

“As a student of film history, I know that violence is a long-standing, even essential element of cinematic grammar and audience catharsis; as a Christian, I find it increasingly difficult to accept portrayals of brutality that are glib, meaningless, played for laughs or cynically nihilistic.”

That list of movies would be pretty darn long. Hornaday feels drawn to a higher standard in calling out senseless violence. The late great Roger Ebert, who viewed film through his culturally Catholic lens, did the same, ripping apart positively reviewed blood fests like Kick-Ass and The Raid. But can a Christian still enjoy the impeccable craft of a Tarantino film? Can we detach ourselves from their voyeuristic bloodletting? I imagine Hornaday (and certainly Roger Ebert) might be more accepting of an equally brutal Coen Brothers film like No Country for Old Men (although fellow Post critic Stephen Hunter was not a fan). Do we puritanically judge movies by their level of violence, or whether that violence serves some sort of artistic statement that we find palatable? What about sexual content?

I’m not sure I have an answer, because film is such a subjective experience. A film we might never expect to move us might leave us in tears, and we may take offense over a movie we expected to love. Again, there’s no rhyme or reason to how we may respond to violence in one context, but not in another.

FOR YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE POOR

But how do we respond to movies that reflect the concerns of this world through a godly lens? Hornaday writes:

“I’m constantly on the lookout for films that lift up our capacities for connection and mutual understanding — not as sentimental, schoolmarmish morality plays, but as an artist’s genuine healing response to a broken and confused world. Anything that seeks to honor or nourish or at least acknowledge our fumbling, feeble, quietly heroic attempts to help get each other through the heartbreak and suffering of life will always earn at least a nod of gratitude from me.”

This gets a big “amen” from me. There are some great secular films out there that Christians will likely be especially drawn to, as they provide a unique perspective in confronting human brokenness. They might even spur religious viewers toward missionary work or other ways of serving and reaching the world’s poor. Films like Blood Diamond or The Year of Living Dangerously are rich experiences for any viewer, but may hold special power for those who identify with Christ’s tremendous passion for the poor. The former devolves into typically showy Hollywood displays of violence, but the latter has a great deal to say about the topic. Take character Billy Kwan’s reflection on how to respond to suffering: “What then must we do? We must give with love to whoever God has placed in our path.” It is in responding to films like these that Christians can add their unique, necessary voices.

Hornaday’s liberal Christian tradition leads her toward a more hands-off approach when it comes to mixing her faith and her criticism. After all, she wouldn’t want to offend anyone. But it should be noted that the cross of Christ is sometimes very offensive, and it will clash with mainstream culture as often as it will mesh. Abhorring senseless violence or glorification of sinful behavior, while also admiring art that calls us to a higher purpose, should be a goal of every good critic. But it should hold special consideration for the Christian critic. Hornaday gets all that right. But her goal of masking that consideration in “language having to do with humanism, transcendence and cosmic mystery” strikes me as a bit false. A critic should not only describe how he/she feels about a work of art, but why. If Hornaday’s faith is the impetus behind her opinions, she should say so. Such a response transcends “objectivity” and reaches higher to the critic’s main goal: honesty. Honesty from a Christian critic can help lift us out of the darkness, not unlike bathing in the light of the silver screen.

Read about my take on more specifically Christian Hollywood fare.

Noah and the (un)welcome return of the biblical epic

Posted on April 2, 2014 by Kyle

Note, some spoilers for Noah follow.

Movies like Noah are a good part of why this site exists. It appears to be the rare case where Hollywood has created a satisfying story of true faith in God that also stands as a good movie a secular audience can enjoy without feeling like they’re being preached to. That’s a lot of pressure for any movie to live up to.

Of course, Noah doesn’t reach those lofty expectations. And, while it reveals some disconnect between Hollywood and largely religious-minded America, it shows signs that things are headed in the right direction.

Noah is, by many accounts, a good movie, and, while it certainly wasn’t made by a Christian man, it was made by a Jewish director who has a deep, abiding respect for the stories he grew up with. He was drawn not to the Sunday-school-sermon version of the story of Noah’s Ark, but rather God and humanity’s continued grappling with original sin.

“When (Noah’s Ark) is taught to kids, it’s about the good man and his family,” director Darren Aronofsky said in an Atlantic interview. “They don’t talk about the duality of original sin.”

Aronofsky has shown the ensnaring power of original sin in graphic, excessive detail in bleak films such as Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler. He explored a dual nature of sorts in Black Swan.

Concern from faith-based audiences stems from several sources, primarily being its accuracy to the original text. Of course, the original story is rather lacking in detail, so details additional details had to be included to make the film into a true epic.

Some of these decisions work better than others. A particular head scratcher is the inclusion of the “Watchers,” fallen angels that now walk the earth as giant stone monsters. They help Noah build the Ark (so of course it takes much less than 100 years). They move the tale more into the realm of science-fiction, rather than historical biblical account. Which, in Aronofsky’s words, was exactly the point.

The flawed epic Noah lays the groundwork for future successful mainstream Bible-based movies.

“I think it’s more interesting when you look at not just the biblical but the mythical that you get away from the arguments about history and accuracy and literalism,” he said. “That’s a much weaker argument, and it’s a mistake.”

That will certainly sound blasphemous to many Christians and Jews that take the early Old Testament account as literal truth. But Aronofsky is definitely on to something here. He goes on to say that the Bible is historically sound and reliable after the Flood narrative and the story of Babel. But the early creation account is by its very nature mythical, because it is so deliberately lacking in detail. Aronofsky is pulling us away from arguments about literalism over something we have never seen, and instead inviting us to appreciate the way God is sharing his story with us. That’s why arguments about a literal 6-day creation, according to the Genesis account, are rather silly.

In Noah’s most arresting sequence, Noah describes the creation of the universe in the language of the Bible, while we see what appears to be theistic evolution, showing how God might have guided the earth through evolutionary processes. Whether you fashion yourself a creationist, evolutionist, believer or non-believer, Aronofsky is showing that it is God’s story, not always the sometimes non-existent details, that matter to us. However he brought it about, we can still stand in awe at the majesty of God’s creation.

EXAMINING THE BIBLICAL EPIC

Views this complex, this simultaneously faithful and radical, have been a long-time coming in both Hollywood and the evangelical filmmaking community. God and the movies go way back, to the birth of the “biblical epic,” movies that told biblical stories using ground-breaking effects and popular Hollywood actors.

The most famous of these is probably “The Ten Commandments,” starring Charlton Heston. Made by the legendary Cecil B. DeMille, the film remains a powerful visual experience, despite its dated special effects. But DeMille’s films revealed the problem with Hollywood’s interpretation of the Bible: they were distinctly lacking in the soul department. Perhaps even more than the parting of the Red Sea, we remember the Jewish people writhing half-naked in front of the golden calf. DeMille was a provocateur, emphasizing the tawdry and voyeuristic over any serious examination of God’s redemption.

Old Hollywood biblical epics were often more concerned with ticket sales than saying anything significant about God.

Other biblical epics weren’t really biblical epics at all. Take the Oscar-winning Ben Hur. It’s subtitled A Tale of the Christ, but it’s only peripherally about Jesus. Ben Hur (Heston, again) crosses paths with Christ throughout the movie, but the story calls too much attention to it. Later in the movie, Ben Hur declines hearing the Sermon on the Mount because he must participate in an epic chariot race. This “oh, and by the way, Jesus/God” attitude permeated much of old Hollywood’s attempts at telling scriptural stories.

The industry’s interest in these tales waned considerably after Ben Hur. Disasters like Esther and the King and King David did nothing to entertain the masses or inspire the faithful. It seemed the biblical epic had run its course in the cinematic universe.

A PASSIONATE GAME-CHANGER

Of course, this was all before Mel Gibson’s compassionate masterwork The Passion of the Christ. The 2004 film, following the final hours of Jesus Christ’s life before his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, was the rare Christ-centered film that everyone, Christian or no, absolutely had to see, if just once. Critics were turned off by Gibson’s relentlessly graphic portrayal of Christ’s suffering, but that was the point. Audiences turned out to the tune of $370 million, a stunning figure for what is easily one of the more violent movies ever made.

The Passion was a rare example of how The Bible and commercially successful cinema could work in harmony.

From a Christian perspective, one has to ask whether a film like Passion’s message is diluted by its R-rated brutality. That’s a valid question. But the movie was a game-changing faith-based film for several reasons. It was a rare example of a faithful believer pouring his heart and soul into a passion project, independent of big-budget studio financing. It also showed that people were hungry for faithful biblical content, even if it wasn’t “entertaining” the way traditional biblical epics were (the image of someone eating a bucket of popcorn while watching the torture of their messiah is one that still fills me with a strange mix of fear and laughter).

There were a few attempts to cash in on the biblical epic after Passion’s success, but they mostly ended up like The Nativity Story, making little impact at the box office or in the hearts of moviegoers. Since then, spiritually minded films seem to have drifted off in two directions. The first is the increasingly popular “faith-based” films, usually created by evangelical Christian filmmakers. Popular examples include Fireproof and the recently released God’s Not Dead.

As a Christian, I don’t want to write off these movies entirely. Their messages of hope and trust in God even in our modern consumerist society are ones that people need to hear. But, as a fan of quality filmmaking, it’s hard not to try and avoid them. The major problem with these types of films is that they build stories around messages; most screenwriters know that great movies are only made when the opposite is true. Great messages are drawn out of great stories and characters. Heavy-handed dialogue, stiff acting and “clean, family friendly” entertainment may do some good in affirming the faithful, but often come off as culturally clueless and boring to non-believers. There are some exceptions; Blue Like Jazz, the adaptation of Donald Miller’s bestselling book (based on his real-life experience attending Reed College, touted as the most godless university in America), struck the right balance between conveying a Christian message and providing an interesting character and story. And yet, evangelical filmmakers seem to think that Christianity is all about sentiment and easy uplift.

Compare this to Hollywood’s attempts at faithful filmmaking, which took a note from Passion by skewing dark and gritty. These movies faced the opposite problem: their often profane content turned off faith-based audiences, and their religious themes kept secular audiences from embracing them fully.

I’ve written before about Hollywood’s God renaissance, and the transcendent work of Terrence Malick, but a good example here is The Book of Eli. Thanks to its post-apocalyptic setting and star Denzel Washington, the movie made almost $100 million domestically. It’s a powerful account of a man who walks by faith, not sight, and a great illustration that the Bible can be used as a weapon, as much for evil as for good. But Eli kills many enemies, and there are decapitations as well as frequent profanities throughout the movie. This leaves the film a little in the lurch; too much bible talk for an action movie, too much profane content for faith-based audiences.

NOAH AND THE FUTURE OF FAITH BASED ENTERTAINMENT

Which brings us back to Noah. It has been touted as a return to the traditional biblical epic. It is epic, but it’s far from traditional. It’s one of the strangest, riskiest movies to be given a wide release in recent years. To say it’s a faithful rendition of the biblical account is both true and false. In addition to the Watchers, there’s the inclusion of a consistent villain (Ray Winstone’s Tubal Cain) that takes things a bit too far, and the film does itself a disservice by letting us see so little of the actual animals (they all fall into a deep sleep as soon as they step onto the Ark).

The characterization of Noah (played sensitively by Russell Crowe) will also be controversial to many. Noah hears about God’s command to build a boat in a (terrifying) dream sequence, but he never audibly hears God’s voice. This leads Noah to make some decisions that are contrary to what we know God would have him do. He’s a modern-day hero in that he is psychologically tortured, thinking he knows what God would have him do but unsure because he can’t hear directly from God.

This is somewhat problematic, but I think it also fits well into our modern culture’s fears and anxieties about following God on faith. Noah is a troubled hero for a troubled age, but he is still a man of intense faith, committed to carrying out God’s will no matter the personal cost.

Exodus, starring Christian Bale, will be the next Biblical story to get the Hollywood treatment.

We get no indication in the Bible that Noah is disturbed or tortured by the fact that the rest of the world is being killed for their wickedness. In the film, it troubles him and his family greatly, and Noah questions whether he is any more worthy to continue living than anyone else. His question: can mankind truly be redeemed? It’s a question that, appropriately, can’t be answered until the arrival of Christ, but Noah plays his part in God’s grand tale despite his questions and doubts along the way. He’s not a saint, but a living, breathing, and very flawed follower of God.

The return of the biblical epic will continue in December with Ridley Scott’s Exodus, starring Christian Bale as Moses. I’m fascinated to see what Scott does with more Old Testament material. Noah is not exactly a great movie, and its deviations from the Bible can occasionally be distracting. I don’t think Aronofsky has any pretensions of truly satisfying a faith-based audience, and it seems a bit too artsy for mainstream audiences. But, despite its pitfalls, it lays the groundwork for what biblically based mainstream movies can do for both religious audiences and nonreligious viewers that simply want to experience a good story.

The film accurately depicts the power of our sin, and how desperately we have always needed God to pull us out of our depravity. It also shows the power that true faith can have, and the fruits of following God regardless of our present circumstances. The fact that it does this in the context of a mainstream action film is not only surprising, it’s somewhat of a revelation. It also had a $44 million opening weekend, so that has to count for something.

Cal Thomas, writing for World, put it best.

“After decades in which Hollywood mostly ignored or stereotyped faith, Christians should be happy they have gotten the film industry’s attention. Successful films like The Passion of the Christ, The Bible and Son of God prove that such stories ‘sell.’ Instead of nitpicking over Noah, the Christian community should not only be cheering, but buying tickets to encourage more such movies. Hollywood may not always get it right, but that’s not the point. They are getting something and that sure beats not getting anything.”

Thomas also wrote that watching Noah might inspire conversation around the life-changing book that inspired it. In my mind, a movie that sends us running back to the Good Book for any reason should be applauded.

50 Years Later: The legacy of The Beatles

Posted on February 11, 2014 by Kyle

I’m convinced there’s only one way to spell the word beatle. Microsoft Word is telling me it’s wrong, but how could it be? There’s only one way that word can be used, and it’s to describe the band that changed the way we communicate.

Fifty years ago, on Feb. 9, 1964, the British pop band The Beatles came to America for the first time when they played on The Ed Sullivan Show. It’s impossible to overstate what that moment would mean to the history of popular western music.

On Sunday, CBS aired a stunning tribute to the band called The Night That Changed America: A Grammy salute to The Beatles. A variety of pop stars, from Stevie Wonder to Ed Sheeran to Imagine Dragons, played their own interpretations of classic Beatles songs. But one of the most striking moments for me was when Dave Grohl, of Nirvana and The Foo Fighters, said, “Without The Beatles, I wouldn’t be a musician.” Some day, I imagine, the next generation of musicians will be saying the same thing about Dave Grohl.

I can safely say, as a music fan, without The Beatles, I wouldn’t be a music lover. I play the trumpet, and the musical influences that have shaped my ear are too myriad to print here. But I’ve never forgotten that my eclectic tastes point back to one source.

This poster of Abbey Road, my favorite Beatles album, will forever occupy prime real estate on my poster-covered wall.

I have to thank my dad for introducing me to The Beatles (among many other of my all-time favorites), but, unlike many older fans, I don’t remember hearing them for the first time. In my world, they have always existed; they have always been timeless. I can’t remember having not heard nearly any of their songs. This speaks so directly to the group’s widespread influence, that a typical ‘90s kid is as familiar with their body of work as someone who experienced their music afresh while growing up.

But why is the music of The Beatles still seem so new, so enduring? What makes them stand out over their contemporaries? The radio station 100.3 The Sound played an amazing set of the “top 50 Beatles songs of all time” on Sunday (as voted by listeners). A DJ on the station said that “The Beatles introduced art to popular songwriting.” Now, there had certainly been popular rock n’ roll artists before The Beatles: Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc. But art as The Sound used it is, I think, more akin to appreciating a favorite painting in a gallery.

Popular music had made us feel before, but not like this. A song like Let it Be or A Day in the Life cause us to feel not just an emotion, but the entire spectrum of human feeling and experience. Never before had rock allowed us to feel hope and despair and outrage and love, often at the same time.

In an interview with David Letterman on that CBS special, Ringo Starr said that the reason he thought The Beatles were so successful because they could play anything; they were never confined to one genre. And, looking through the Lennon-McCartney songbook, it’s easy to agree. The Sound’s top 50 songs include aching love ballads (And I Love Her, If I Fell, Yesterday), nonsensical flights of fancy (I am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds) and epic, transcendent odysseys (Strawberry Fields Forever, Golden Slumbers Medley).

While everyone has their personal favorite Beatles songs (Hey Jude was number one on this countdown), it’s tough to argue that any particular “style” of song is superior to another. It seems to be a matter of preference. In other words, The Beatles have something for everyone.

During the countdown, I noticed that many of the Fab Four’s most haunting songs involve looking (often focused on the lover’s gaze). Think of I Want You (She’s so Heavy), You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away, I Saw Her Standing There, Something and Eleanor Rigby. Isn’t that appropriate for a band that has changed so much about the way we see?

Speaking of seeing, we’ve never seen anything like The Beatles—never has a “popular” band so expertly mixed politics and pop culture, rage and romance, coolness and controversy—and we never will again. I don’t think we want to.

Golden Globes: Chalk one up for the underdog

Posted on January 14, 2014 by Kyle

This year, Hollywood’s hottest party was a beautiful, hot mess of rambling philosophical musings masquerading as speeches, awkwardly long walks to the podium and genuine awards surprises. But the biggest pleasure and surprise of the show was the story of the underdogs dethroning established Hollywood royalty.

Hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler helped make for an effortlessly entertaining, sometimes surprising Golden Globes ceremony.

Not that some very big names didn’t take home awards. The show got off to a great start, with hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler riffing as they do best. An early award went to Jennifer Lawrence for Best Supporting Actress for American Hustle. A previous Oscar winner, Lawrence is, in some circles, already considered Hollywood royalty. But compared to icons like competitor Julie Roberts, Lawrence is still the fun-loving, starry-eyed onlooker, wondering how she ever even got invited to the party. That kind of humility is rare in show business, but there was plenty of it to go around Sunday. The initial reaction is that Lupita Nyong’o was snubbed for her stirring, intensely physical performance in 12 Years a Slave. And, while I love Lawrence more than many, I’d have to agree. Her performance was a delight, but not a revelation like Nyong’o’s.

American Hustle took home several other awards, including Amy Adams for Best Actress Musical/Comedy (beating out Meryl Streep) and Best Picture Musical/Comedy. There’s been a bit of a backlash against the film, but I think it remains effortlessly entertaining, with David O. Russel’s most effervescent and effective direction. Whether “effortlessly entertaining” is enough to justify its win over competition like Her and Inside Llewyn Davis remains to be seen, but the odds seem to be in its favor.

All the other acting category wins were absolute slam-dunks, recognizing some very deserving (and frequently snubbed) performers. I was overjoyed to finally see Leonardo DiCaprio take home a Globe for his performance in The Wolf of Wall Street (musical/comedy). It’s the finest performance of his career, and I hope he isn’t overlooked at the Oscars. Equally deserving was Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club (drama), a brilliant actor whose stunning late-career renaissance can be overlooked no longer. It is a bit of a shocker that he beat out Chiwetel Ejiofor for his soul-stirring lead role in 12 Years a Slave, and it should make for a very interesting Oscar night. He also beat out the likes of Tom Hanks andRobert Redford, something to be proud of, for sure.

The Best Director race was one of the most fascinating of the night: Paul Greengrass, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, David O. Russell and Steve McQueen. A phenomenal list of dedicated artists who have worked a very long time to find their way to the spotlight, not one can be considered a celebrity director on the level of, say, Martin Scorsese. Cuaron took home the award for Gravity, and I hope he can repeat that success at the Oscars. The Mexican director has quietly been creating some of the best studio and independent films of the past few decades, and, from A Little Princess to Children of Men, his time has finally come.

Some pegged Gravity for a win in Best Picture/Drama, but, even with snubs in other categories, 12 Years a Slave wasn’t exactly a surprise. It follows a tradition of historical films winning over the more populist, fantastical competition (see: The Hurt Locker over Avatar; The Artist over Hugo, etc.) But Gravity is better than most films that find themselves as “the populist choice,” so the Oscar race is far from assured.

Is there a more perfect image of the spirit of this year’s Globes than Barkhad Abdi? The Somalian actor came out of nowhere and stunned as the unpredictable pirate captain in Captain Phillips. Talk about overwhelming. Nonetheless, he had a smile on his face the whole night, probably wondering how the heck he ended up here, among the entertainment elite. He lost the best supporting actor trophy to Jared Leto, the Dallas Buyers Club actor who returned to the profession after a six-year hiatus. He beat out rising stars Daniel Bruhl, Bradley Cooper and Michael Fassbender. All guys who have come a long way for the recognition they so richly deserve.

Same goes for the TV winners. Bryan Cranston finally won for his role as Walter White in Breaking Bad, and Andy Samberg and Amy Poehler were both genuinely shocked to win in comedic acting categories. From mocking celebrities on Saturday Night Live to beating them out for major awards.

Here’s one for the little guys. Watch out, Hollywood, because someday they’ll be running this business. Sooner rather than later, it seems.

2013: The year in disappointment

Posted on January 5, 2014 by Kyle

In many ways, 2013 was a great year for movies. As my top 10 list shows, it was a killer year for documentaries, blockbusters and independent productions. I also got to attend the Sundance Film Festival for the first time.

And yet, in many, many other ways, 2013 was a string of disappointments. This is not necessarily a look at the worst things that happened in the industry in 2013, but rather a lament over the things that could have been done better. It’s also a regretful meditation on some of the things we lost for good. So, without further ado…

GOODBYE, MR. VIDEO

Video stores were a massive part of my childhood. I relished our family’s trips to the “tape store” (ours was Mr. Video). It’s safe to say my love of movies was cultivated in those halls of VHS tapes and, later, DVDs. I’m not the only one. Legendary director Quentin Tarantino worked at a video store for years, a place where he cultivated his passion for movies by watching everything in the store, and then discussing what he’s seen with customers. Probably the most knowledgeable director and film historian living, Tarantino would not be where he is today without the video store.

Thus, it is with great sadness that I learned 2013 was Blockbuster Video’s last year. Sure, the movie rental chain had been on the outs for years, but it was the last one to hang on with actual, physical stores. With those stores gone, the death of old-fashioned rentals is complete. Digital and kiosk rental has completely taken over, and that’s both a good and bad thing. Certainly, it’s great to know we can get what we want, when we want it. Our computers don’t “run out” of copies of the latest releases. But, while some don’t remember the glory days quite so gloriously, I’ll miss the video store precisely because of its hardship; it was an adventure. If I didn’t find what I was looking for, I was often steered to something even better. The internet gives us exactly what we want, and thus decreases our odds of branching out and experiencing something new out of necessity.

And what of communities that form around the movies? Certainly, online communities and forums have increased our access to a wider variety of opinions and conversations surrounding the movies we love. But, as we all know, the web is impersonal and often vitriolic. The video store was the place for sane, civil discourse regarding the movies we loved. And, as much as I love writing about movies, talking about them in-person is so much more fun. We’ll miss you, Blockbuster, warts and all.

GOODBYE, ROGER

When looking over critics’ top 10 lists this year, one voice was conspicuously absent. Not hearing Roger Ebert’s opinion on many of the great films released this year made his death feel all that much more impactful, but his life even more so. As I summed up in my reflection, his was a singular voice in criticism; honest, never indulgent and alive with the joy of the movies. There’s not much more to say, other than the movies will never be the same without you, Roger. Thanks for adding so much to the conversation of film.

THESE MOVIES, SPECIFICALLY

Now, these weren’t the worst movies of the year (okay, one was) but rather the ones that squandered great promise or were too just crazy, dull or indulgent to evoke anything other than a “meh.” I try to actively avoid bad movies, so here are some one I wanted to love, but couldn’t.

Man of Steel—The worst thing to happen to Superman since Richard Pryor, Zack Snyder’s reboot was admittedly a victim of its own hype (mine included), but that doesn’t make the finished product any better. Numbingly violent and brimming with unnecessary product placement, the greatest sin the movie commits is simply being a great big bore. Great actors are given nothing to do, and Superman remains, at the end of the day, not interesting. Snyder and co. have taken a shard of Kryptonite to any heart this franchise had left.

The Great Gatsby—Only slightly less hyped than Man of Steel, the best and worst thing about Gatsby is that it was directed by Australian visual stylist Baz Luhrmann. He’s an incredibly talented and knowledgeable filmmaker, but he didn’t quite know what to do with such legendary material. The result is an odd, sometimes interesting cocktail, one that simultaneously never quite stays true enough to its source material while also refusing to take the creative risks necessary to make such a lavish adaptation work. Gatsby is hardly a bad film, but neither is it an adaptation of the legendary novel that is much worth remembering.

Only God Forgives—The most aggressively terrible movie of the year, this movie is harder to sit through than an opera starring Justin Bieber. Nicholas Winding Refn had a solid art-house hit with Drive, but the day this tone-deaf, pretentious claptrap passes as a movie or even some kind of abstract art is the day the cinema dies. Drivel is what it is, and drivel it should remain.

Disappointment=solid concept paired with lame execution.

Escape From Tomorrow—The concept is genius: a nightmarish version of Disneyland where innocent cartoon characters become demonic abominations and the line between reality and sanity begin to blur. The only nightmare here, however, is the movie itself. The making of this film in all its guerilla-style, Disney’s-gonna-kill-you bravado, is one that will go down in movie history. The film behind the story fluctuates between brilliant and terrible. It’s a rare “meh” movie that contains no mediocre scenes. 50 percent is genius; the other 50 is complete garbage. If that sounds fascinating, it is; Escape from Tomorrow is definitely worth seeing, but it is nowhere near good.

Elysium—I’m particularly heartbroken to admit this one. I liked this solid sci-fi adventure. But it is more than a bit of a come-down after Neil Blomkamp’s masterful District 9. It’s tough to fault the visceral action, but the ham-fisted political message and eye-rollingly trite storytelling don’t do Elysium any favors. Nonetheless, I have a certain affection for it.

Into the Furnace—While admittedly a good film, it’s baffling to see this on a few high-profile top 10 lists. Masterful acting from Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson and Casey Affleck can’t save this war vet drama from falling into typical revenge film tropes. And that ending sucked. Sorry.

HOLLYWOOD EXPLOITATION OF RELIGION

Do people of faith expect outright mockery from Hollywood? Of course. And the industry had a ball making fun of the explicitly Christian version of the apocalypse (see This is the End, Rapturepalooza, etc.). But we also had the pleasure of pandering blockbusters, which attempted to coerce religious audiences into buying tickets by playing up the minimal spiritual aspects in their films. The most egregious example is Man of Steel, what with Superman’s overblown Christological imagery and his jarring come-to-Jesus moment. I’m willing to consider that the filmmakers might have been sincere with this kind of stuff, but it seems more pandering that proselytizing.

Nonetheless, it’s important to call out a few films that I thought got religious faith right. Terrence Malick’s troubled but ultimately successful To the Wonder took both faith and doubt very seriously, particularly in the context of a struggling marriage. Not a surprise, given the director’s pedigree. The Conjuring was a fright flick that had a lot more on its mind than your typical exorcism flick, even if some of its spiritual conclusions were a bit troubling. And thank God for Prisoners, one of the best of the year, a film that wrestles deeply with its main character’s sense of Catholic guilt adding weight to his decisions, good and bad. It’s a world where God is never absent, even in the midst of some very dark human suffering. And that’s pretty darn refreshing.

Will Noah be the rare religious-themed secular film that takes its subject seriously? Multiple movies will fall under this scrutiny in 2014.

I’m both afraid of and excited about 2014, where Hollywood is focusing on the Bible with renewed and intense interest. There’s the reverent-looking Son of God, as well as the adaptation of the bestseller Heaven is For Real. On the secular side of the fence, there’s Darren Aronofsky’s Noah and Ridley Scott’s Exodus. It’s going to be an interesting year for the Bible in popular culture, and I’m excited to be along for the ride. Expect much discussion on this blog over these and other spiritually-minded films.

To 2014, and all the disappointments (and pleasant surprises) the movies will surely bring.

The Top 10 Films of 2013

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Kyle

In some ways, year-end top 10 lists are completely pointless, if not pretentious. Quality is almost entirely subjective, so anything approaching a “definitive” list is impossible. Also, there’s always bound to be movies that you miss, so a more appropriate title is “the top 10 films that I saw this year.” As a non-professional who has to pay to see things, there are many important films I’ve yet to see. All is Lost, Short Term 12, Blue Jasmine, Inside Llewyn Davis and Her are a few that immediately come to mind.

With those caveats in place, I still adore top 10 lists, especially when film-goers have a chance to highlight films that they believe have been overlooked along with heaping further praise on the more “obvious” but no less deserving choices. I’ve put a lot of thought into my list, and I hope it shows. How do I choose what makes the cut? Well, I tend to go for movies that surprised me in some significant way. Whether I laughed more than expected, was lifted higher than I imagined or thrown for a loop in a way I didn’t anticipate, surprise is something so rare in the cinema, but so valuable. These movies all provided that value. Enjoy.

10. THE WORLD’S END

Could we have imagined such a completely satisfying conclusion to Edgar Wright’s bonkers Cornetto trilogy? The team behind Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz reunited for this third outing, which finds stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost playing losers once again facing a supernatural menace (aliens, in this case).

What puts this movie above the others, for me, is the brilliant supporting cast, including Martin Freeman and Paddy Considine. But what truly anchors the film amidst all the madcap insanity is Pegg’s mesmerizing performance as a man who finds himself living in the perpetual “glory days” that Bruce Springsteen sang about. It’s alternately funny and tragic, like the film itself, and a sobering reminder that no one gets Oscars for “comedic” performances. That’s a shame, because this one was so much more.

9. CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Every time we think we’ve seen everything Tom Hanks can do, he reinvents himself and enthralls us anew. As Captain Rich Phillips, he gives perhaps the best performance of his career, because not an inch of him looks or acts like a movie star. Equal praise goes to native Somalian Barkhad Abdi as the pirate captain. Their game of wits, based upon the true story that enthralled the nation in 2009, provided some of the most intense moments in cinema this year. Not surprising, considering that Paul Greengrass is one of the most exhilarating filmmakers in the business. And good lord, that ending. Be ready for it.

8. PRISONERS

Don’t mistake this terrifying film for a typical revenge thriller. If anything, it’s a reaction against almost every one made in the last few decades. Pulling career-best performances from Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhall as the man determined to find his daughter at all costs and the cop doing all he can to help, Prisoners is a slow burn, and a disturbing one. But its moral complexity, found in Jackman’s Keller Dover and his intense Catholic faith, make every decision feel as weighty as it should. Dover knows torture is wrong, for example, but what else is a desperate father to do? We may not approve of his decisions, but we can understand why he would make them. It makes this thriller so real, and atones for the sins of a thousand thoughtless slaughter fests from Segal, Stallone, Gibson and company.

7. STORIES WE TELL

In a killer year for documentaries, Sarah Polley’s layered film stands out by reminding us why we tell stories in the first place. Polley’s breathtaking oral history of her family centers on her mother, and some family secrets that come to the surface in some surprising ways. To say anything more would ruin the impact of the film, which unfolds like a can’t-put-down novel, as revelation after revelation glues us to the screen. We tell stories, Polley suggests, primarily to lie to ourselves. After all, life and memory don’t always play out as straightforward narrative. They’re messy, and Polley calls us (and herself) out on our willingness to coalesce human experience into a convenient narrative. While many documentaries are didactic or polemical in nature, Stories We Tell trades more in ambiguity. Kind of like life. It’s essential viewing for anyone who has ever desired to tell a story. And really, isn’t that all of us?

6. FRUITVALE STATION

Seeing Fruitvale Station at a packed theater at the Sundance Film Festival is one of the movie highlights of my life. Seeing first-time director Ryan Coogler’s real-life depiction of the life and death of Oscar Grant (a great breakthrough performance by Michael B. Jordan), a bay-area black man senselessly killed by a white BART officer in 2009, reminded us of our obligation to our fellow man. We laughed, we cried, we pleaded that the story would turn out differently, that Jordan’s mother (a brilliant Octavia Spencer) would never have to bury her son. But, of course, she did, and that knowledge imbues the film with a sense of dread and urgency that even fuels the many joyful moments in this brilliantly acted, exhilarating debut. I can’t wait to see where Coogler and Jordan go next.

5. AMERICAN HUSTLE

Is there any more consistently exciting director working today than David O. Russell? When his films arrive, it’s like the carnival’s in town and we’re all invited. It’s hard to not be swept up in his effortless energy, his brilliant writing and his ability to bring the best out of today’s most talented actors. In his loose fictional interpretation of events surrounding the Abscam bribery scandal of the ‘70s and ‘80s that took down a number of big Jersey-area politicians, he does that and more. He channels his own inner Scorsese, resulting in a rich crime drama full of memorable characters, a great pop-filled soundtrack and some of the best hair ever committed to a screen. Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams are all at the top of their respective games, and great supporting performances from the likes of Louis C.K., Jeremy Renner and Robert DeNiro only sweeten the deal. I could watch Jennifer Lawrence singing “Live and Let Die” in yellow rubber gloves for hours. And that’s only one scene.

4. BEFORE MIDNIGHT

A perfect ending to what may go down as one of the best trilogies in movie history. Director Richard Linklater reunites with stars Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy for a bittersweet meditation on love, commitment, and the way life both strengthens and whittles away at both. If the previous films worked more like romantic fables, Before Midnight is so real it hurts. The possibility that these passionate lovers’ relationship may be on the rocks is beyond heartbreaking. If Linklater’s dialogue might be a bit too existential for some, Hawke and Delpy go a long way in making it feel as natural as breathing. The Before trilogy is one of the great triumphs of modern independent filmmaking; all you need is a good idea, a couple of passionate and talented artists, and a little bit of money. No pressure, right?

3. MUD

Combine the best elements of Stand By Me, The Goonies and the plays of Tennessee Williams, and you have a newly minted American classic on your hands. Director Jeff Nichols’ previous film, Take Shelter, is one of the best films of the decade so far, and Mud continues the trend. This southern gothic tale, set on the Mississippi bayou, is filled to the brim with warm characters, beautiful locales and that ever-approaching mix of fear and excitement over growing up that is the cornerstone of any great coming-of-age story. Tye Sheridan provides one of the more natural and engaging child performances in recent memories, and Matthew McConaughey complements an incredible year as the title character, showing once again why he’s the most surprising actor in Hollywood. Along with amazing performances in The Wolf of Wall Street and Dallas Buyers Club, he’s ready for a date with Oscar. It’s more a matter of when, rather than if.

2. GRAVITY

Wow, wow, wow. What else is there to say about Alfonso Cuaron’s revolutionary space film? I’m bored by conversations over how Gravity will hold up in years to come. Who cares? In the here and now, it is one of the most emotional, exhilarating and audacious experiences I’ve ever had in a movie theater. Maybe it’s an obvious film for a top 10 list, but it’s on almost everyone’s, so that probably just means it’s really, really good. And it is; if all big-budget spectacles were this spectacular, I would have no life. Sandra Bullock is so exhilarating to watch; it’s the finest performance of her career by far. She has to carry most of the film on her shoulders, and she does so with impressive physicality and a quiet resolve. From its breathtaking opening to its haunting final shot, Gravity is the work of a true master. It will be emulated for years to come, but no one will come close to replicating this space opera for the ages.

1. 12 YEARS A SLAVE

The word “essential” should be very rarely used in the word of film. But, with 12 Years a Slave, it is entirely justified. Director Steve McQueen’s films have come off as a bit cold in the past, but in his treatment of American slavery his relatively objective lens lends the true story of Solomon Northup an appropriate level of gravitas and reverence. Northup, a free black man living in 1840s-era New York who is captured and sold into slavery in the south, is played with an aching level of passion by Chiwetel Ejiofor in the performance of the year. In his expressive eyes, we see not only Northup’s pain but also his unquenchable spark of hope. The supporting cast is all-around brilliant too, from Benedict Cumberbatch to Brad Pitt to Michael Fassbender. And Luptia Nyong’o as Patsy is one of the most wrenching breakthrough performances in memory.

12 Years is not an easy sit, and some might be looking forward to seeing it like they would a root canal. I did. I was shaking when I entered the theater, and I was shaking when I left. But that intensity underestimates the film’s aching beauty; from its sensuous cinematography and costumes to the quiet moments of hope and joy that can be found in the film’s small moments. The most memorable scene is not a whipping, or an act of verbal torture, but rather, a group of slaves, burying one of their own and singing, with both pain and hope, to the God that is still with them, even as others use the same God to subject and demean them. It’s rare to be reduced to a blubbering mess by a movie without feeling emotionally manipulated, but 12 Years is a passionate, beautiful masterpiece that earns such a heartfelt response.

The dog did it: Living in a spoiler culture

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Kyle

Spoiler Alert, obviously.

Several friends of mine were rather disappointed when a story appeared online about a fake obituary in a New Mexico newspaper for Breaking Bad antihero Walter White. Some articles mentioned the disappointment of the paper’s readers over having the character’s fate spoiled for them. But my friends reading the story were equally disappointed, because they hadn’t seen the finale either. I saw the story 4 days after the finale aired, but by then I had already seen it. Nonetheless, I recorded the finale during its Sunday night premiere and intended to watch it in the next few days. I didn’t even make it that long. My Facebook news feed tantalized me with complex analyses of the finale, but I avoided them. Then I saw that Stephen Colbert had interviewed show creator Vince Gilligan the night after the finale. I watched the interview, and when Colbert warned of spoilers, I figured he meant everything but the final episode (I had seen all but the last episode at that point). I was wrong. “Why did you decide to kill off Walter White?” Colbert asked Gilligan. I let out a little groan, knowing full well that the spoiler culture had gotten the better of me once again.

The word “spoiler” is an interesting one. It implies damaged goods, something that is ruined beyond repair. After all, something “spoiled” can’t really be “unspoiled.” But in some cases the term seems a bit strong. I watched the Breaking Bad finale, and knowing the fate of Walter White in advance did nothing to hamper my enjoyment of it or the surprises of some of the other twists and turns the finale took.

And yet, having something spoiled for us can elicit an intense reaction. In the case of Breaking Bad, we feel betrayed. After spending a good 60 hours with these characters and this world, we hear of its conclusion outside of that world, detached from the universe that we’ve become so attached to. It’s ending with a whimper what should have been ended with a bang. But Breaking Bad is far from the most egregious example. After all, Walt was doomed from the start. It’s not so much about what happens to Walter White, but how it happens. Thus, watching the show is not a waste of time even if we know how it ends.

In a show like Lost, which is even longer than Breaking Bad, the betrayal is more abrupt. Because the entire series is predicated on a twist ending, having it spoiled for you can feel like you’ve wasted a good chunk of your life watching the show. Once the mystery is unveiled, it loses a lot of its magic.

One major issue with the spoiler culture is the lack of consensus on the shelf life of our entertainment. After all, the Sixth Sense has been out for over 10 years, and people still get upset when I try to talk about the ending (the dog did it, by the way). How long does the rest of the world have to wait for us to catch up? A month? A year? 10 years? When does the world get to stop feeling sorry for me and my ignorance?

The problem is confounded by the seemingly perverse joy people have in ruining things for others. A friend of mine tried to talk to me recently about the absolutely stunning ending to the video game Bioshock Infinite. “I heard that game gets crazy,” he said. Luckily, I had long ago finished it, but I think he wished I hadn’t. Someone else had ruined the game for him, and all would not be right with the world until he ruined it for someone else.

Our digital, always-on lifestyle makes avoiding spoilers even more difficult. The best way to stave off Breaking Bad spoilers would have probably been to stay away from all social media contact for at least a week after the finale. But for someone like me, who gets so much of his information and news from his Facebook feed, I don’t see how that’s possible. The spoiler culture also tends to be elitist. Everyone is talking about this, and if you’re not a part of the club, you’re shunned from the community with those patronizing “spoiler alert” messages that tantalize: “Come on, what we’re talking about here is pretty awesome. Don’t you want to be cool? One peek won’t hurt.” In that article about the New Mexico newspaper obituary, the underlying message is “hey, you know that Breaking Bad finale? Well look what happened here.” Never mind that our answer to that question might be “no.” If we don’t know by now, someone is going to tell us.

Traditional work culture describes a “water cooler moment” as an entertainment or cultural event that everyone will want to talk with their work colleagues during breaks around the water cooler. The advantage to this is that you know when you need to stay away from the cooler to avoid spoilers (and who you need to stay away from). But online, the water cooler is everywhere, and there are no breaks. It’s like dozens of strangers screaming in your ear “hey, how about that series finale? Pretty cool, huh?” You can only tune out so many voices before one slips by.

So, what’s the answer here? Are we doomed to have great stories spoiled for us because we don’t experience them at the same time as others? I think caution and consideration on both sides can minimize the impact of the spoiler. If you’re a person that tends to spoil things for others, realize that there are people out there who care about great stories as much as you do, and that ruining a universe for someone else is kind of a low blow. And, if you’re someone who tends to feel the cold sting of the “spoiler alert,” my best advice to you would be to tread lightly.

Entertainment Hunter

Tackling the world of pop culture

Category Archives: essays