Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts

Saturday, January 10, 2009

2008 Film List

Two years ago, about the time I started to take a more serious interest in film, I started cataloging the new films that Karina and see. I had been doing the same for books and thought it would be interesting to do the same for films. Ok...and I was semi-curious at how many films we actually watched in a given year. Over the past 2 years we have also been slowly working our way through AFI's original 100 greatest films list. It has been a fun project but we have gotten bogged down in that process at times too.

In 2007 we watched 104 new films and in 2008 we watched 110 new films. A few favorites that stand out in my memory are Modern Times with Charlie Chaplin from 1936, Everything Is Illuminated with Elijah Wood from 2005, Ostrov or The Island (a Russian film) about penance that is simply wonderful. Other favorites, Lars and the Real Girl (2007), Into the Wild (2007), King Corn (2007), Wall-E (2008), Iron Man (2008) and Babel (2006).

Our complete viewing list...
1.1.08 Babel 2006
1.1.08 The Seventh Seal 1954
1.4.08 The Natural 1984
1.5.08 Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End 2007
1.05.08 I Married a Witch 1942
1.06.08 Girl In the Café 2005
1.07.08 Doctor Zhivago 1965
1.07.08 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 1969
1.08.08 Pink Panther 1963
1.12.08 The Prestige 2006
1.13.08 The Life & Passion of Jesus Christ 1905
1.14.08 From the Manger to the Cross 1913
1.15.08 Koyaanisqatsi 1982
1.16.08 Dan In Real Life 2007
1.18.08 Good Luck Chuck 2007
1.21.08 Barbarella 1969
1.21.08 War Games 1983
1.22.08 Angels With Dirty Faces 1938
1.22.08 Roaring Twenties 1939
1.26.08 Iron Giant 1999
1.29.08 Reign Over Me 2007
2.4.08 War of the Worlds 1953
2.10.08 Nightmare Before Christmas 1993
2.11.08 Memento 2000
2.13.08 License to Wed 2007
2.15.08 Bourne Ultimatum 2007
2.18.08 Transporter II 2005
2.19.08 The Life of Brian 1978
2.22.08 The Wild Bunch 1969
2.24.08 P.S. I Love You 2007
2.25.08 Evan Almighty 2007
3.01.08 The Man Who Knew Too Much 1956
3.03.08 2 Days in Paris 2007
3.04.08 The Birds 1963
3.08.08 Wild Hogs 2007
3.09.08 Spirited Away 2002
3.09.08 The Jazz Singer 1928
3.10.08 Idiocracy 2006
3.14.08 We Are Marshall 2006
3.15.08 Everything is Illuminated 2005
3.17.08 Absent Minded Professor 1961
3.19.08 The Island 2006
3.20.08 Green Pastures 1936
3.22.08 The Perfect Man 2005
3.25.08 Little Children 2006
3.28.08 I Am Legend 2007
3.29.08 Unforgiven 1992
4.1.08 Goodfellas 1990
4.9.08 Gridiron Gang 2006
4.10.08 Modern Times 1936
4.10.08 Freedom Writers 2007
4.12.08 Night of the Hunter 1955
4.20.08 A Good Year 2006
4.21.08 Battleship Potemkin 1925
4.26.08 Juno 2007
4.27.08 27 Dresses 2007
4.30.08 Duck Soup 1933
5.02.08 Double Indemnity 1944
5.03.08 Iron Man 2008
5.04.08 Lars and the Real Girl 2007
5.06.08 Pan's Labrynth 2006
5.06.08 City Lights 1931
5.10.08 High Fidelity 2006
5.14.08 Friends With Money 2006
5.17.08 National Treasure II 2007
5.18.08 August Rush 2007
5.19.08 Cocktail 1988
5.21.08 Frankenstein 1931
5.27.08 Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull 2008
5.31.08 Jesus Camp 2005
6.02.08 Just Like Heaven 2005
6.03.08 Tootsie 1982
6.07.08 You Don’t Mess With the Zohan 2008
6.08.08 All About Eve 1950
6.10.08 Into the Wild 2007
6.15.08 The Game Plan 2007
6.19.08 The Godfather 1972
6.21.08 The Godfather II 1974
6.21.08 3:10 To Yuma 2007
6.22.08 The Goldrush 1925
7.19.08 Batman: The Dark Night 2008
7.20.08 The Departed 2006
8.04.08 Amadeus 1984
8.10.08 Cabaret 1972
8.11.08 In the Heat of the Night 1967
9.01.08 Bonnie & Clyde 1968
9.06.08 Shrek TheThird 2007
9.14.08 A Flea Market Documentary 2001
10.04.08 The Virgin Suicides 2000
10.04.08 King Corn 2007
10.10.08 The Bucket List 2008
10.11.08 High Noon 1952
10.12.08 The Third Man 1949
10.14.08 Baby Mama 2008
10.16.08 Grapes of Wrath 1940
10.18.08 The French Connection 1971
10.25.08 Fools Gold 2008
11.04.08 Be Kind, Rewind 2007
11.06.08 Get Smart 2008
11.10.08 Stagecoach 1939
11.18.08 Hancock 2008
11.22.08 Wall-E 2008
11.27.08 Quantum of Solace 2008
11.29.08 Black Snake Moan 2006
12.5.08 The Love Guru 2008
12.10.08 Leatherheads 2008
12.18.08 Forgetting Sarah Marshall 2008
12.26.08 Charlie Wilsons War 2008
12.29.08 Grand Theft Auto 1977
12.30.08 Burn After Reading 2008

Friday, May 2, 2008

Iron Man and Personal Values

Last night we went to the opening of Iron Man. While I’ve never been into comic books nor their superhero’s the film is excellent. Robert Downey Jr. is a perfect fit as the womanizing jerk Tony Stark. But after being betrayed and captured in Afghanistan by people using the weapons he designed Stark has a change of heart as he watches the man who saved his life die.

In one sense, this is a conversion story where the character goes from a producer of weapons to the protector of people. Stark creates the ultimate weapon but uses it for “good.” I loved the story, but I struggle with the individualized sense of ethics that Stark converts to. What are his orienting points that guide his new moral compass? Certainly his change is laudable, but what we need to think about is where do we get the framework for what is good in our life. How do we define what is good? Can we leave it up to the individual? The state? Can that individual help others achieve that same type of conversion?

The struggle with individualized values is that there is no larger framework beyond the self to uphold and re-enforce ones chosen values. They can be matters of convenience able to increase or decrease in value (essentially what is profitable for that person) depending on the circumstances. The idea of value comes from the market economy built on needs, wants, and scarcity. Is this where we really want our moral values to emanate from? Values shift from person to person based on what is effective for their own self advancement or fulfillment.

To what are we looking for the moral ideal? From whom or which tradition are we learning our behavior? Who’s traditions are we using and being used by?

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Iconoclasts and Film

A year or so ago, someone near me rejected a proposed brochure because its central focus was of a stained glass image of Jesus the good shepherd. She cited the Old Testament prohibition against graven images from Exodus. Now I am aware that this argument is still alive and well in certain Christian community, but I was startled to find it so near me. This strange series of events made me consider the nature of an image of Christ and the portrayal of his humanity. Some years ago I had the opportunity to engage certain fundamentalist Baptist pastors about such matters who are ardently opposed to images of Christ even though they had certain didactic purposes, which they consented to. Their main claim was that once you had said that this is Jesus, you would also have to explain that this is not Jesusbecause it only portrayed his humanity.


So how do artists get off with imaging Jesus?






To my fundamentalist interrogators I would now respond with wisdom I did not possess then, that one may have well passed Jesus on the road or in the market wholly unawares of his divinity. Our eyes have been trained by faith to see the divinity within Christ and yet N.T. Wright suggests that few, if any, Jews of the time would have expected the Messiah to be divine.

Another complicating factor concerns our Western intellectual heritage of emphasis on the written word, and for descendants of the Reformation that is seen in the written Word. While Luther was not as condemnatory of images as Calvin and Zwingli, he kept a wary eye on them. I cannot help but wonder how these emphases, so strongly rooted within Protestantism, has perpetuated this anti-image and iconoclastic tendencies within our Western version of Christianity.

Returning to the woman who rejected the brochure with images of Christ, I wanted to ask her what she thought of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion. Did she enjoy it? Did she even see it? Are there Christians who praise the film and yet reject still images whether painted or sculpted? Do those who praise the film and reject images see their duplicity? What is it for them that sets the film apart from images? Are not those who act as Christ not more potentially misleading than the static images which are surely other than the humanity Jesus inhabited?

These are questions I am posing to my class this coming Monday. I am interested to hear their responses after their readings.

Friday, April 11, 2008

I Am Legend, Gridiron Gang, & Freedom Writers

In the recent weeks I will admit that I have been slacking off with my posting schedule. Class and work have been a little overwhelming. But that does not mean that I’ve not been thinking about the films I’ve been watching. We have seen a few remarkable films as of late.

I Am Legend – I remember seeing the preview for this film in the theatre before Ocean’s 13 and immediately I wanted to see the film. And yet, the film preview says little about the actual movie. I have had this fantasy since I was a kid about being able to go anywhere, into everyone’s homes and look around. If I was the only person left, where would I go? What would I do. I think that is what intrigued me about I Am Legend. In actuality, the film struck me as a strange cross between solitary and forgotten Tom Hanks character of Castaway and the cult classic from 1969, The Night of the Living Dead. Theologically what struck me about IAL was certainly the sacrifice of the one that many could live. Smith’s character becomes a sort of Christ figure through that sacrifice. One of the other keys themes centers in the topics of anthropology and what makes someone human. Without giving too much away, we are right to consider what are the quintessential marks of humanity, and without those marks, what do we become?

Freedom Writers & Gridiron Gang – Both films tackle the violent nature of inner city youth culture and how our society can train and educate these broken young men and women. Both are loosely based on true stories where one individual through personal sacrifices and dedication to these impoverished young people invests in them giving them hope. Gridiron Gang uses the football, still a violent sport, to inspire a team mentality to overcome the divisions of individualism and competing gang mentality. Freedom Writers overcomes the same challenges but through a more generous and caring self investment through their teacher played by Hillary Swank. Both are worthy films to explore how racism still divides us today and the violent nature of our youth culture. Gridiron Gang recalls both Coach Carter and Remember the Titans. While Freedom Writers recalls Stand & Deliver, Lean on Me, and most notably Higher Learning but also many others.

These films are needed reminders of our responsibility towards the other. In many ways, Freedom Writers is about calling and vocation. Swank’s character ends up divorcing her husband played by Patrick Dempsey as she has taken on 2 part-time positions to pay for supplies for her students that the district cannot or will not give her. But one of the key exchanges is his lack of understanding of what in many ways is played out like a calling upon her life. He selfishly fails to understand her commitment to these kids because they are not, from his perspective, her responsibility. The film suggests that these kids have been largely disowned by everyone who encounters them and she becomes the only one who invests her life into them from which a mighty change in their personal life is portrayed. The theme of vocation in a poignant scene with Swank’s father played by the grizzled Scott Glenn, that this calling is a burden upon her. Not that this weighs her down, but is her role to carry and fulfill. This is a beautiful image for the pastor and Christian in general. There is a certain burden and heaviness of life that comes with matters of faith, education, missions, and preaching. I have felt it as I prepare my lessons. I have felt it in my unworthiness and lack of knowledge. It defies casual understanding. She states that in this role, she feels most like who she was created to be. What a wonderful image and thought. For us, as Christians, utilizing our unique giftedness to care for and serve in God’s Kingdom, we will meet challenges but we will simultaneously becoming who we were meant to be in ways we cannot even fathom when we begin.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Saint Benedict's Rule & Fight Club

I have to admit that this photo has nothing to do with this post except for the fact that it is from Fight Club. This is a rather late addition to the Fight Club series I did a month or so ago, but upon reading The Rule of Saint Benedict this week one short passage stood out, as if I had seen a mirror of this in action recently. Rule 58 states,
“When anyone presents himself to be admitted as a monk, they shall not easily give him entrance; but, as the apostle advises: ‘Make trial of the spirits, to see if they are of God’ (1 John 4.1). If he is importunate and goes on knocking at the door, for four or five days, and patiently bears insults and rebuffs and still persists, he shall be allowed to enter. He shall stay in the guest-room for a few days. Thence he shall go to the cell where the novices study and eat and sleep.”

This Benedictine initiation practice is meant to deter those who are not prepared to undertake such a life change. This is not meant to be easy. After several days of waiting through insults and denials, they still persist in their desire, they may be allowed to enter. I have heard of a Rabbinical tradition that may do similar things. Those who wish to convert to Judaism approach a Rabbi who rebuffs them. If they return three times, they may undertake with seriousness their conversion.

In Fight Club, we see young men coming to stand outside on the porch of the Paper Street house waiting to enter. They are verbally and physically harassed about being to young, fat, or blonde. Once they have stood the appropriate time, they are asked if they have brought the needed supplies of black clothing and personal burial money. Once entered they receive a ritualistic head shaving, thus leaving their old beauty of the world behind. They form a new army and take on its uniform.

I wonder how many American Christians would actually put up the waiting and rebuffs to become a Christian? Does the Church allow too easy of conversion? Would any church actually rebuff someone today who came seeking? What can our churches learn from the novitiate or catechumenate processes?

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Keeping the Faith

This past week one of our class viewings was the delightful comedy Keeping the Faith which picks up on the plethora of priest/rabbi jokes that seem to circulate. It tells the story of 3 inseparable kids growing up in New York City until Anna, played by Jenna Elfman, leaves her two boys Jake Schram, played by Ben Stiller, and Brian Finn, played by Edward Norton after their eighth grade year.
Stiller’s character grows up to be a rabbi while Norton’s character becomes a Catholic priest. Many years later, but still in the infancy of their ministries, Anna, now a high-power business woman returns to New York for work and looks up he long lost childhood friends. What ensues are crises faith, falling in love, conversions, and questionable ethics.

Going in, I asked my students to read articles on love, sexuality, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and pluralism from the Musser & Price New and Enlarged Handbook on Christian Theology. I also asked them to read Beth Newman’s article “Pluralism as Idolatry.”

One of my questions of the film and filmmaking in general, is what should we expect from them in the portrayal of religion? Should I expect them to give an accurate portrayal? Can we appreciate the film on its own merits and still be dissatisfied with its shallow portrayal of religion?

Notes on the positive:
Fr. Finn is a young priest who seems to be inspiring his congregation, at least by sight in terms of growth. He had brought a sense of renewal to this apparently dying congregation. Fr. Finn is an interesting portrait of a priest as well. In one sense, this film is about calling and the challenges of ministry. We see a very human priest facing the challenges of celibacy. It is cliché these days to portray a faithless priest as pedophile or sexually active among his congregants. Keeping the Faith walks a fine line. Brian certainly falls in love with his childhood friend Anna, makes a pass at her, but still remains true to his vows. At the highpoint of poignancy, the elder priest comforts Brian by telling him that he had fallen in love at least once every decade of his ministry. But he says to the young priest that each day it is a choice, in marriage or ministry, to be faithful and fulfill your vows. The scene goes like this,
Father Brian: I keep thinking about what you said in seminary, that the life of a priest is hard and if you can see yourself being happy doing anything else you should do that.

Father Havel: That was my recruitment pitch, which is not bad when you're starting out because it makes you feel like a marine. The truth is you can never tell yourself there is only one thing you could be. If you are a priest or if you marry a woman it's the same challenge. You cannot make a real commitment unless you accept that it's a choice that you keep making again and again and again.

It is a welcomed word for both those who are married and serve in ministry. It is a helpful corrective to the “feeling” of love, and Brian’s own definition of faith as feeling.

Notes on the not-as-positive:
My feeling is that the portrayal of religion is ultimately shallow. Brian, in a sermon defines faith as,
“The truth is, I don't really learn that much about your faith by asking questions like that...because those aren't really questions about faith, those are questions about religion. And it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith. Because faith is not about having the right answers. Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really. It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. And that feeling, that hunch, is God. And coming here tonight, on your Sunday evening... to connect with that feeling, that is an act of faith. And so all I have to do is look around the room at this packed church... to know that we're doing pretty well as a community.”

Not only does he define faith based something as fickle as feeling he connects vital faith with numbers. Not that this is particularly unique to our society. Rather, in many circles this is heightened by the health and wealth gospel as well as our addiction to self-help resources. Faith, for Brian, is about us and not about God. I do not want to reduce faith to pure rationalism, and feelings are a necessary part of the life of faith. But his succinct definition would seem to truncate the historical definitions of faith.

Similarly, the required readings for this film were intended to help students consider our cultures pluralism. Does Keeping the Faith simply show the existence of a plurality of religions or does it suggest in a typical postmodern fashion, that all faiths or spiritualities are equal and can be chosen at random as long as it is useful to ones life? Are the interrelations between Brian’s Catholicism and Jake’s Judaism simply friendship between the two acknowledging the gulf in between or are they just two options in the spiritual marketplace?

Another comical scene in the film takes place when Brian, distraught on a bender shares his story with a local bartender. In this scene we get an insight into the very complicated religious plurality of human lives.

Father Brian: You're a Sikh, Catholic Muslim with Jewish in-laws?

Bartender: Yes. Yes. It gets very complicated. I'm reading Dianetics.

Father Brian: Don't blame you.

Additionally questionable, Brian, along with Rabbi Schram want to bring their religions into the 21st century…“old world religion with a new age spin.” Both run up against religions steeped in tradition. Jake seems though to take it on more directly with the introduction of non-Judaic practices into the communities spiritual life. He also runs up against their expectation of a rabbi. He too receives wise words from an elder that people want to be lead into the next century and change rather than pushed. People like their traditions because they give them stability that orients them in the world. So while both young men want to push their congregants to keep pace with the changing world, they hopefully learn the value of tradition along the way.

I have seen this film numerous times and yet have not come to a conclusion on the films view of pluralism. I do feel it is a valuable film to explore topics of vocation, love, tradition, family, conversion, similarity and differences of faith and religion; but also pastoral ethics, revitalization and many more.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Tyler Durden: A Dark Christ-Figure?

Our small group has been studying the Gospel of Luke for the past 6 months or so and we continue to return to Luke 4:16-21 as a hermeneutical lens for understanding Luke’s perspective of Jesus.

The passage states, “When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." 20 And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

The scroll was open to Isaiah 61 which should be read a fuller understanding for this context but Jesus’ own words suffice as a summary. Verse 19a of the Luke passage or 2a of Isaiah 61 mention the “year of the Lord’s favor” which points to the Year of Jubilee in Leviticus 25 where all property shall be returned to its rightful owners and debts are forgiven.

With that in the back of my mind, my recent viewing radically changed my perception of Tyler Durden. Kelton Cobb, in The Blackwell Guide to Popular Culture states that Jack apprentices Tyler’s in an “ad hoc twelve-step program that Tyler devises to free Jack from his bondage to the dominant paradigm of consumerism” (p. 11). I began to wonder, is Tyler a sort of Christ figure, albeit a very dark one?

Much of what the Lukan passage suggest and recurs throughout the Gospel is liberation from illness, oppression and the structures of society. Tyler is trying to liberate Jack and subsequently the rest of the men (and also the participational viewer) from the burden of branded identities and consumption. Tyler whispers to Jack while he is on the phone with the police, “Tell him the liberator who destroyed my property has realigned my perception.”

Another telling scene is in the basement of Lou’s bar or tavern. Lou enters and proceeds to pummel Tyler. Tyler willingly accepts this beating for the sake of others. Tyler motions to Jack to stay on the sidelines because his entry would derail his purposes of obtaining this venue on behalf of the greater whole. He, like the Space Monkeys later sacrifice themselves so that fledgling community of Fight Club may go on.

Another telling scene takes place in the back of a convenience store…the epitome of unnecessary consumption. With the glow of soda machines in the background the store clerk, Raymond K. Hessel is hauled out at gunpoint and made to kneel on the ground. Tyler sifts through his wallet finding an expired community college I.D. card he asks what he studied. The clerk, fearing for his life manages to dribble out barely understandable words. At one time, he had wanted to be a veterinarian and having become overwhelmed by the work involved he left his dreams behind to work in a life-sapping environment of consumption. Tyler takes the man’s license and says that he will check in on him in 6 weeks and will kill him if he is not on the way towards becoming a veterinarian. Afterwards Tyler says, “Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day in Raymond K. Hessel’s life.” Raymond is awoken from the slumber of self in a society bent on selfish consumption and freed to pursue his dreams. In fact, his life (both metaphorically and literally) depend upon it. In a later scene, we see the back of a door covered with stolen drivers licenses signifying that this was not a random act. Rather they had encountered many attempting to liberate them from consumption towards a greater good.

Another central question that should be asked is the nature of the violence. To what end is the violence. Is there meaning in or redemption from the violence? In these particular scenes it would seem that there is. The cross, the supreme act of violence in the Christian tradition becomes the central motif for Paul and the means of our salvation. Here too the violence is the necessary method of freeing others from the oppression of social structures. Raymond K. Hessel and all the others represented by their drivers licenses have been in someway freed. The Space Monkey’s too have been freed from their miserable lives to find meaning in liberating others. And we as the viewer also are to find liberation by participation in the story.

Tyler may be thought of a sort of Christ-figure insofar as he gives sight to the blind (awakens slumbering culture to the effects of consumerism) and then heals them by giving them a new identity, and brings good news to the poor (both literally poor and of spirit), and frees them from the burden. The clincher for this Christological lens is the year of the Lord’s favor…the Year of Jubilee. Tyler, and project Mayhem are bent on bringing down the credit card industry to level the economic playing field. By destroying this harmful and oppressive banking practice Tyler initiates what to many would be the Year of Jubilee.

And yet, we must consider (as one of my students pointed out) not only what Tyler is liberating them from, but to what/where are they going? And this is where the Christ-figure lens would seem to fail. Robert Bellah points out a fantastic irony in Habits of the Heart by saying, “just where we think we are most free (we’ve cast off these oppressive structures and philosophies), we are most coerced by the dominant beliefs of our own culture. For it is a powerful cultural fiction that we not only can, but must, make up our deepest beliefs in the isolation of our private selves” (p. 65). Radical individuals fail to see that they cast off one set of traditions for another set. Thus Tyler leads them from the oppressions of one tradition (namely consumption) to another (namely violence and anarchism). If this is correct and the film finally does not endorse the violence it portrays, Tyler can simultaneously be thought of as an anti-Christ leading his followers into another form of oppression.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Fight Club, the Hegelian Synthesis and Robert Bellah’s Individualisms

The Hegelian synthesis suggests that from a thesis will arise its anti-thesis and as a way to mediate between the two a synthesis will emerge blending and rejecting elements of both the thesis and antithesis.

Fight Club, while giving voice to the frustrations of many post-moderns, seems to utilize this very modern construct.

The thesis is represented by Edward Norton’s character Jack or the Narrator as a buttoned-down un-happy white-collar worker in an un-ethical and mind-numbing job. His antithesis, Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt is the alpha-male unrestrained by societal rules and its ways of functioning. Tyler is Jack’s self-created, self-liberating alternate personality.

For this to work we must ask, does the film ultimately condone the violence of Tyler’s actions as they are portrayed? The final scenes would seem to give us ample direction to say that the violence portrayed is not the ultimate answer. The Jack at the end is no longer the slave to the Ikea nesting instinct he was at the beginning and yet neither is he the slave to Tyler’s ambitious anarchy. Jack in the final scenes would seem to represent the synthesis. He has been liberated from desire for consumption but also its antithesis of violent rejection. He is not the emasculated male nor the hyper-violent male either.

I think we see the synthesis at work in Tyler’s words too. On one hand he says that “You are not your khakis” but also, “You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We are the all-singing, all dancing crap of the world. We are all part of the same compost heap.”

Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart describes individualism in two particular forms: utilitarian and expressive. Benjamin Franklin is the epitome of the utilitarian expression of individualism where the individual rises to success through hard work and personal initiative. They are identified by the proverbial “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.” Many believed that if each individual vigorously pursued his or her own interest, the social good would also automatically emerge (p.33).

Expressive individualism, a form of Romanticism and best exemplified by Walt Whitman, arose in reaction to the materialistic pursuits of utilitarian individualism. Expressive individualism sought to cultivate the self and self-expression where each person has a “unique core of feeling and intuition that must unfold if individuality is to be expressed (p. 333-4) These sentiments are easily identifiable in Whitman’s writings, as well as, Emerson, Thoreau, Melville and others. For the expressivists, “the ultimate use of the American’s independence was to cultivate and express the self and explore its vast social and cosmic identities” (p. 35). We hear this in our language of “finding oneself.”

Fight Club seems to critique both the materialistic utilitarian individual as well as the self-cultivating expressivist. And yet, the film avoids becoming preachy and dictating the synthesis. It is left to the individual to navigate and mediate between the utilitarian and expressivist, as well as the emasculated consumer and ultra-violent alpha male. Jack becomes the one who has successfully escaped both but we are left to fill in what his life will now look like.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Fight Club and Nihilism

Most commentators suggest that Fight Club is a nihilistic film likely based in the anarchist and violent tendencies portrayed by Tyler Durden.

First we should consider a basic concept of nihilism. Literally it suggests “nothingness” emanating from a “complete rejection of and possibly the destruction of beliefs and values associated with moral and traditional social structures. Philosophically, nihilism represents an attitude of total skepticism regarding objective truth claims. Nihilism views knowledge as dependent upon sensory experience alone, so that moral and theological claims are meaningless” (Stan Grenz, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms).

In many ways, these ideas are embodied in the film. There is a rejection of capitalism and consumerism that most hold dear in our culture. There is a rejection that violence is bad. Pain, or other sensory experiences becomes the means to awaken to real life. We see that latter with the scarification ritual in the soap-making kitchen. Tyler says, “this is the most beautiful moment of your life, don’t deal with it the way those dead people do.” Which is another critique of the therapeutic tendencies of our culture.

That same scene also gives us other insights into the nihilism of the film. Many forms of nihilism are naturally paired with atheism. If there is no God, than there can be no moral absolutes. Tyler’s monologue in the kitchen suggests that this form of nihilism is not atheistic.

“Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. Never wanted you, and in all probability he hates you. this is not the worst thing that can happen. We don’t need him. Fuck damnation, man. Fuck redemption. We are God’s unwanted children. So be it. It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we are free to do anything.”

Kelton Cobb in The Blackwell Guide to Popular Culture states, “This is a bitter theism, a resentful affirmation of God’s existence” (p. 265-6). God seems to be a given. And yet we are forced to contend with the apparent realities of life rather than what we would like to believe about God. His experience colors his concepts of God. In return, he renders God as irrelevant.

The article on Nihilism from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Donald M. Borchrt also suggested, “nihilism is caused not so much by atheism as by industrialization and social pressures, and its typical consequences are not selfishness or suicide, but indifference, ironical detachment, or sheer bafflement.” This claim certain helps see the effects of consumerism as an institutional violence.

And yet, the nihilism portrayed in Fight Club is not absence of hope. Tyler says to Jack, “In the world I see, we’re stalking elk in the grand canyon around the ruins of the Rockefeller Center. You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You’ll climb the vines around the Sears tower. And when you look down you’ll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty carpool lane of some abandoned superhighway.” Kelton Cobb states, “For Tyler, Eden will rise from the rubble of cities that have been cleansed of the poison of corporate logos, global markets and consumer incompetence” (p. 265-6). Furthermore, if there is no hope and no meaning, why bother with the destruction of society to liberate humanity?

In many way’s the film is nihilistic. And yet there are glimmers of hope not unlike our eschatological hope. Times are dark and yet we can see and imagine a purer reality as it has been promised, and in some ways is already present.

Monday, March 3, 2008

He’s No Threat To You: Emasculation in Fight Club

Emasculation becomes a central theme in Fight Club as it is portrayed by the narrator Jack. William Romanowski, in Eyes Wide Open states, “Emasculated by the consumer culture…Jack finds solace (though under false pretense) in a support group for men with testicular cancer: (The castration metaphor is obvious.) There he meets Bob, a former body builder; who has developed feminine features resulting from his cancer treatment. Trying to comfort the sobbing Jack, Bob rasps in a high pitched voice, ‘We’re still men,’ with Jack affirming “Yes, we’re men. Men is what we are.”

Consumer culture emasculates by fostering false idealized images that motivate men to change what and who they are: men. They run longing for this idealized image to which Tyler, Jack’s idealized alpha-male alter-ego helps to free Jack from this burden.

At the outset of the film we find the emasculated Jack seeking solace and identity in consumable products rather than in himself…whatever that may look like. In an early scene where Jack and Tyler first appear in the same shot, sitting side by side on the airplane Tyler reads the emergency instruction card to which Jack replies something about the great responsibility that seat has to open the emergency door. Tyler asks if he would like to switch seats to which Jack replies, “I’m not sure that I am the man for that job.” Lack of confidence, or sense of responsibility Jack declines as a symptom of the emasculated male.

In one scene Jack describes the relationship between he and Tyler as, “Most of the week we were like Ozzie and Harriet.” We are not confused who is whom in this analogous pairing.

In another scene at Marla’s apartment, Marla says to Tyler, “Oh Don’t worry he’s (referring to a dildo) not a threat to you.” As the alpha-male, sure of his virile sexuality, Tyler is not threatened by a wobbling gelatinous penis on the dresser. And yet, earlier when Jack, the emasculated male is at the airport, the attendant insinuates that Jack’s missing luggage may have been a result of a vibrating dildo.

Craig Detweiler in his book, A Matrix of Meanings says, “A longing for God and fathers informs every frame of Fight Club” (p. 42.). We see this theme boy with out father-figures recurring throughout the film. In a later poignant scene, the two men sit and discuss their fathers.

Jack: “I can’t get married, I’m a 30 year old boy.”

Tyler: “We are a generation of men raised by women…I’ wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.”

Elsewhere in the film Tyler asks, “Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?”

Our culture’s lack of fathers point of orientation in development renders an incomplete identity that must be filled by things. Ultimately the we are shown what it means to be a man by those products rather than our fathers.

Jack narrates to the audience, “I felt sorry for guys packed into gyms, trying to look like how Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger said they should look.” And turning to Tyler asks, “Is that what a man looks like?”

Later Tyler responds to similar thoughts in a monologue to the local fight club, “Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

We have been sold a false bill of goods and the scales have fallen from our eyes. The mute now have a voice to combat the culture…to give an expression to their (and ours) discontent.

Tyler represents Jack’s desire to be a strong male rather than the passive slave to culture. And we are left to ponder our own emasculation. Are we simultaneously repulsed by Jack’s emasculation and attracted to Tyler’s freedom? If so, is that symptomatic of our own emasculation?

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Fight Club and Consumption

This past week I had my class view Fight Club. While I had seen the film many times before, I had not seen it for several years. This viewing opened up several new layers of the film that over the next few days I want to spend some time wrestling with.

I saw the film first in 1999 when the film came out against the advice of a good friend who was thoroughly disappointed with the lack of fighting. He had hoped that it for a boxing movie to which Fight Club is sure to disappoint. The film is certainly violent, but it serves a different purpose than a film like Rocky where the hero rises against the odds to greatness. Fight Club uses violence as a subtext to explore what is necessary to subvert the dominant paradigm of consumption.

Fight Club is a scathing critique of our branded and consumable identities. The Narrator played by Edward Norton, who remains nameless save a few 3rd person references as “Jack” is shackled by societies addiction to things. The fact that he largely remains nameless is suggestive of two things: 1) that he finds his identity in those things he buys and 2) Jack is a sort of everyman in which we are to see that we too are kept by these consumeristic desires.

In response to the question of police about the destruction of his apartment, Jack states, ““That condo was my life. I loved every stick of furniture in that place. That is not just a bunch of stuff that got destroyed, it was me!” It was ME! His identity had become those things. In a consumer culture we can buy our identity, change it on a whim because we are buying not simply clothes or furniture but a lifestyle that tells others about who we are. For Jack, identity was found in his stuff…his Ikea furniture, his AX ties and DKNY shirts etc. In one poignant scene Jack tells Tyler, “I had it all. I had a stereo that was very decent, a wardrobe that was getting very respectable. I was close to being complete.” To which Tyler replies casually, as if unbound to all forms of materialism, “Shit man, now it's all gone.” Jack’s identity was almost complete as if there is nothing of value within the self but must be supported and comforted with commodities and now, it was all gone. Without these material enhancements, Jack must now set out on a path of discovery towards who he really is.

In that same poignant scene come the most scathing critique of consumerism.

Tyler Durden: Do you know what a duvet is?
Jack: It's a comforter...
Tyler Durden: It's a blanket. Just a blanket. Now why do guys like you and me know what a duvet is? Is this essential to our survival, in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word? No. What are we then?
Jack: ...Consumers?
Tyler Durden: Right. We are consumers. We're the bi-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me, are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra.
Jack: Martha Stewart.
Tyler Durden: Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic. It's all going down, man. So fuck off with your sofa units and string green stripe patterns.

Here we get a glimpse of the final scenes of the film. That this cultures ways of consumption, this lifestyle obsession is coming to an end. We are left to wonder now in retrospect, does Tyler already have his plans in mind? This is also telling for Christians who are just as easily sucked into our cultures consumptive ways. We too are more interested in the personal enhancements, the versatile solutions for modern living, than issues of social justice. Certainly the health and wealth gospel only serves to uphold the cultures consumption. Messages of service and sacrifice, the Cross and martyrdom are sadly out of fashion.

If we are to critique our culture which in embedded in consumption, we must also provide a viable alternative in which we locate our true identity. Which the church has: the story of God in Israel and Christ. And yet, we must be careful not to package and sell the story in the medium of that same consumeristic culture. It is a telling irony, that Tyler’s anti consumption task force, Project Mayhem is funded by consumption or their selling of designer soaps. It points out the irony that anti-consumerism can still be sold as a product or identity. Jack says, “It was beautiful, we were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.”

The Christian faith is not another add-on identity to those we have already garnered. It is something other. Something that demands the whole self.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

The Man With the Movie Camera

The Man With The Movie Camera was produced in 1928 by Dziga Vertov. Vertov was employed by the Moscow State film studio’s until his films, which were often political manifesto’s about the nature and possibilities of film, fell out of favor with Stalinist Russia. Only under Kruschev in the early 60’s did his films re-emerge.

One of Vertov’s tasks was to cultivate a new cinematic language and thus rejecting traditional cinema, particularly Western narrative cinema that drew heavily upon literature and staged acting. He wanted to show the beauty of the actual without the artificiality of stages and actors which function on the presupposition of filmed reality. Vertov attempted to film life as it was or life caught unaware because people act differently on camera than when not in front of the eye. Often considered a formalist, Vertov emphasized the artistic process of filmmaking itself through editing, special effects, camera angle and position in order to capture reality but also suggest an ideal reality.

Viewing THWTMC provides an excellent opportunity to gain visual literacy. Vertov utilized the montage, or “two film pieces of any kind, placed together, inevitably combine into a new concept, a new quality, arising out of that juxtaposition.” Vertov is a master at this. Not only as viewers are we forced to contend with the composition and structure of each shot, we must interpret the purposeful sequences of images that may build upon, interpret, or juxtapose past or future images.

Vertov is working on a great number of conceptual ideas in this film. We would do well to keep our eyes out for a few key ideas.

The film, in one sense, is a statement about film…what it should be and what it should not be. Vertov’s a film is both art and art theory.

THWTMC attempts to show an interconnectedness between humanity and machine. Vertov shows the joys of work, the similarity of rhythms between humanity and the city. The city, the machines, and humanity are merged into one larger machine. It is a celebration of the Soviet workers state.

Vertov is also attempting to show the that the filmmaker is a key part in this workers world performing similar duties to factory workers that were needed to keep this larger national machine running.

Vertov works symbolically through special effects and editing. Watch for the juxtaposition of shots and what they symbolize.

Vertov was intrigued with Einstein’s theory of relativity and thus tries to show the relativity of time, space, size, etc.

1) How did Vertov convey the interconnectedness of the city and humanity?
2) How did Vertov show the importance of his own role in society?
3) Which editing sequences did you find most interesting?
4) Do you see this as a narrative piece or non-narrative documentary style film?
5) What similarities does Vertov’s film share with Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi?
6) What are the two filmmakers perspectives on technology?
7) What relevance does Vertov’s work have for us today?

View The Man With the Movie Camera online.

Another fascinating site is www.dziga.perrybard.net/, an updating of TMWTMC. By inviting others to contribute similar scenes from their own video collections, the film is recreated and run along side of each other.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Cold War and Religion in The War of the Worlds


Thursday night Karina and I watched the 1953 version of H.G. Wells classic The War of the Worlds. The story, for those who may not know or have seen the more recent Steven Spielberg production, tells of a technologically advanced alien race with intents on destroying the earth.

I found several things remarkable in the film. First at the time it was made the United States, which is where 99% of the film takes place, with only a few references to the landings around the world and the valiant efforts of the British, was embroiled in the height of the Cold War. The fear of the other as alien is obvious, but the film capitalizes on the time periods fear of the Russians. American’s fears of greater weapons residing with their opponents, their weapons being useless, being infiltrated, their efforts for peace ignored are all present as a subtext to the alien invasion.

Religion also plays a prominent role in the older version. Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins played by Lewis Martin before approaching the alien craft suggests, “I think we should try to make them understand we mean no harm.” He goes on to say that “they too are living creatures.” His reasoning is that if they are more advanced creatures than humanity then they must be nearer to the Creator. And since no attempt had been made to communicate with them, he approaches reciting the 23rd Psalm, and subsequently is killed by the alien. I cannot help but to view this through that cold war lens. Is this a scene depicting the religiosity of the West and the Godlessness of the East? Pastor Matthew takes the high road, and acts with compassion trying to understand the creatures and his advances are met with contempt and heat rays. Another key scene is set inside a Los Angeles cathedral where many are gathered for safety and prayer. Not even this sacred spot was safe from the violent creatures.

But I also wonder if religion is portrayed all that positively. Could it be that the priest is actually the fool for attempting peaceful relations with the other? Many prayed for a miracle that the creatures could be stopped, but the explanation was biological rather than theological. Are we seeing the triumph of science over religion as well. Is this another subtext for an American audience?

If communism is the primary underlying fear behind the portrayal of the aliens, their utter destruction of all that is sacred in the American way of life would imply the same is to be expected from a Russian invasion. Not only is this a riveting science fiction tale, if the cold war is an accurate subtext it would seem to be another piece of American cold war propaganda.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Koyaanisqatsi

Koyaanisqatsi is a non-narrative 86 minute film from 1982. As the title rises so does the murmur of the Koyaanisqatsi chant which means "life out of balance." The film begins and ends with human figures painted long ago on cave walls and transitions to pristine southwest landscapes and then to clouds and water. Over time, we begin to be introduced to the contemporary fingerprint of humanity upon the earth, as contrasted with the non-invasive cave paintings. We see beautiful forms and destruction, humanity in general and in the particular, escalators, assembly lines, and the machines of modern production. From the heights above the cities we witness large cycles of life: day to night and back to day and work to home to play to work. many of the shots are just breathtaking other sequences have an ironic tone as we see Twinkies and hotdogs shooting out of processors we see humanity being spit out of escalators. Adding to the stark dichotomy between nature and contemporary human society is the increasing pace. The shots of the southwest are long and slow while a majority of the shots that picture the cityscapes are sped up. As the film leaves creation scenes for human society the speed of editing and the Philip Glass score increase to a frenetic pace.

While the film is powerful, it is perhaps about 30 minutes too long especially for today's viewer.

Some of our most interesting dialogue about the film last night in class was about Godfrey Reggio's artist statement on the Koyaanisqatsi website. He states,


That being said, my intention in-other-words, let me describe the bigger picture. KOYAANISQATSI is not so much about something, nor does it have a specific meaning or value. KOYAANISQATSI is, after all, an animated object, an object in moving time, the meaning of which is up to the viewer. Arthas no intrinsic meaning. This is its power, its mystery, and hence, its attraction. Art is free. It stimulates the viewer to insert their own meaning, their own value. So while I might have this or that intention in creating this film, I realize fully that any meaning or value KOYAANISQATSI might have comes exclusively from the beholder. The film's role is to provoke, to raise questions that only the audience can answer. This is the highest value of any work of art, not predetermined meaning, but meaning gleaned from theexperience of the encounter. The encounter is my interest, not the meaning. If meaning is the point, then propaganda and advertising is the form. So in the sense of art, the meaning of KOYAANISQATSI is whatever you wish to make of it.
This is its power.


We generally agreed that we all have our own interpretive lenses that color our insights into the film, and yet it seems that Reggio has overstated his statement...too grandiose one student suggested. If no communication of intent is made, that it seems like the piece would been stillborn. And contrary to Reggio's statement and apparent fear of becoming propaganda, many feel that he has done exactly that. Reggio has created a thought provoking piece dealing with time and the effects of contemporary human consumption.


The following are a few of the questions we discussed and a few other passages that came to my mind as I watched the film.


1) What is Reggio’s intention or purpose with the film?
2) How does the film’s construction and editing convey his intention?
3) What scenes/juxtapositions stand out to you?
4) How does the musical score aid your interpretations?
5) Would you consider this a modern or post-modern film? How do you know?
6) What is considered as the “good”?
7) What theological questions are raised by the film?
8) Any irony at play?
9) Is the film dated or still relevant to our current situation? How? Why?
10) Would you watch the other 2 films in the Qatsi trilogy?


“The ineffable inhabits the magnificent and the common, the grandiose and the tiny facts of reality alike. Some people sense this quality at distant intervals in extraordinary events; others sense it in the ordinary events, in every fold, in every nook; day after day, hour after hour. To them things are bereft of triteness; to them being does not mate with non-sense. They hear the stillness that crowds the world in spite of our noise, in spite of our greed. Slight and simple as things may be—a piece of paper, a morself of bread, a word, a sigh—they hide and guard a never-ending secret: A glimpse of God? Kinship with the sprit of being? An eternal flash of will?
Part company with preconceived notions, suppress your leaning to reiterate and to know in advance of your seeing, try to see the world for the first time with eyes not dimmed by memory or volition, and you will detect that you and the things that surround you—trees, birds, chairs—are like parallel lines that run close and never meet. Your pretense of being acquainted with the world is quickly abandoned.”
-from Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion – Abraham Heschel

Ecclesiastes 1.1-11
1 The words of the Teacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. 3 What do people gain from all the toil at which they toil under the sun?

4 A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises. 6 The wind blows to the south, and goes around to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. 7 All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they continue to flow. 8 All things are wearisome; more than one can express; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, or the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has already been, in the ages before us. 11 The people of long ago are not remembered, nor will there be any remembrance of people yet to come by those who come after them.

Psalm 19.1-6
1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;
4 yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and nothing is hid from its heat.

Genesis 1.27-28
27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Romans 8.19-23
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.


God's Grandeur
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And, for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs--
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
by Gerard Manley Hopkins