Check out my interview with Off The Grid Radio about Myth in the Bible and Abraham in the land of Giants, Canaan:
Get Chronicles of the Nephilim on Audiobook!
As many of you know, I am not only a filmmaker, but an author of novels.
My current Biblical Fantasy saga, Chronicles of the Nephilim is being received with much love and fandom.
Chronicles of the Nephilim is a saga that charts the rise and fall of the Nephilim and just what their place is in the evil plans of the fallen Sons of God called, “The Watchers.” These rogue members of God’s divine council will stop at nothing to win their war as the Seed of the Serpent against the Seed of Eve. But God has other plans!
But I need your help.
I want to put the whole series on audiobook so more people can get the series.
So please check out my Kickstarter Campaign and consider pledging to the cause!
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE COOL VIDEO EXPLAINING EVERYTHING ON KICKSTARTER
You’ll get rewards that are better than if you bought the items from Amazon or Audible.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Ordinary man changes the world. DO NOT see this in 48 fps, and DO NOT see it in 3D. The first made it look like a bad British Television Soap Opera and the 3d was completely ad hoc worthless. But other than that, it was a great movie! It took half the movie for me to stop noticing how bad the image looked with it’s video like edges. It was so interruptive in a bad sense that it spoiled that first half for me. I was thinking about how “realism” as a dominating genre or worldview can have some deleterious effects, especially when applied to fantasy.
Now, the goal of storytelling is verisimilitude. That is, the author wants the audience to feel that regardless of the fact that the story may be fictional, or fantastic, or poetic, or their opposites, it still “rings true” with human nature or the way things really are or should be. It “seems real.” Now, this not only goes for the human drama or characterization or emotions, but for the look and feel of the movie. We all know how bad makeup or monster suits can “take us out of” our suspension of disbelief and we then feel cheated. Good 3D (Like in Avatar) will make us feel like “we are really there.” HD or 4K can bring a sharpness of image that give us “more to see” and therefore more to ingest of the imaginary world. I would not deny that 24 frames per second (fps) creates an initial distortion of the looking glass to which we have become accustomed, and that all such customs are often challenged and often overturned as cultural bias. Look at the film versus digital debate. I too prefer grain, and have embraced digital only insofar as it can replicate the moods and images of film, which is often achieved through lighting and cinematography. I even prefer the video look for certain genres that require it to give the feel of “reality” such as found footage horror films. So there is a time and place for all kinds of techniques to produce effects in the audience.
But this 48 fps thing stinks.
It creates a “staged look” of a television play that intends to be more “realistic” but in fact is less so. What I mean is that when we speak of “realistic” let’s not fool ourselves into thinking “realism” is a superior genre or any less of a biased genre or prejudicial worldview than any other. The very notion of “reality” begs the question, “whose version of reality?” What often masquerades as realism is in fact a nihilistic worldview or at least a blind humanistic elevation of empirical observation. Who says that being able to see the pores in an actor’s skin is more “realistic”? Only the person who believes that scientifically observed details are more important than the spiritual journey of the character, or that ignores the fact that our eyes actually operate to obscure some details in order to see the bigger patterns of “reality.” Or consider the more “realistic” movies that don’t portray angels or demons. Why is this more realistic? Because “we all know that such things don’t exist” says the ignorant humanistic physicalist. Do you see how “realism” is just a bucket to pour one’s own prejudices into about his version of reality? I think Orcs and wizards are more “real” than most news reporting from the mainstream media since they are so manipulative and selective of facts, they almost never tell the truth. If you doubt me, just be the subject of any news report and you’ll see what I mean. I’ve had people “report” on my blog about the Noah movie as being that I “don’t like the fantasy” of it or that I had no problem with the environmentalism of it. Both of which are completely the OPPOSITE of what I wrote. But the depiction of the Trolls in the Hobbit are definitely like people I’ve known.
So don’t try to tell me that 48 fps is more “realistic” cause it’s not. It’s more Soap Operaish and ugly and that is not a good thing for a fantasy epic. Rather than watching a fantasy story, you feel like you are on the set watching the actors act.
Back to the story…
One big thematic thing stuck out to me, and that was the line that Gandalf said that embodied the entire epic, about how it’s not really extraordinary people who change the world, but the ordinary who do normal acts of goodness. That really hit home with hope because it seems that in today’s world of increasing government and societal oppression over all areas of life, us normal people, us little guys, can feel an awful lot ineffective. We’re just a bunch of hobbits who want to be left alone to enjoy our lives in our own communities. Like Bilbo, we’re not heros. We want to leave others alone to live their lives. But evil does not sleep, and evil will not stop trying to control until it rules over everyone. So by trying to “live and let live” we are actually empowering evil and its net of fear to destroy innocence and spread. We must stand up and do something to help others. This is what Bilbo learns in his relationship with Thorin Oakenshield. If he does nothing and hides his head in the ground, Great men of goodness like Thorin will die. So when Bilbo finally becomes the rallying man to save Thorin from the Wargs and the Pale Orc, we see a man who has grabbed a hold of his responsibility to fight evil in this world, even if he is small and ordinary and has no chance. And it is of particular importance that he does not use the Ring when he does try to save Thorin. If he used the Ring, it would have protected him in such a way as to preclude sacrifice. It would have been easy. But instead, he fights the enemy with full danger of losing his life in order to save the fallen Dwarf king. That single act of courage is the high point of the entire story and pinpoints Bilbo’s transformation into a hobbit of honor and courage.
When Thorin repents for considering Bilbo a worthless chap that they should have left in Hobbiton, they cement a connection that shows everyone has something to give to help in the fight against evil. It is the small things, the little things, the ordinary things of life that can change the world. When the fellowship of dwarves is caught by the Goblins, Bilbo is completely overlooked because he is so small and unassuming. The tiny Ring of course carries the destiny of Middle Earth and its held by the sniveling Gollum and then the small humble hobbit Bilbo.
Being small and ordinary is not so bad or meaningless a life. And that’s why this story is so grand and universal, because it shows that in a world of fighting titans, both good and evil, it’s the little guys doing the right things that add up to changing the world as much as any king or wizard.
It’s kind of a pity that by adding in all the back story battles, Jackson has turned The Hobbit from a lighter fairy tale type story into a darker story more like Lord of the Rings. But I reckon those who worship the mythology of Middle Earth may be pleased to have the extra material in there.
Best Scene: When Bilbo meets Gollum and they have the riddle game sequence. Gollum’s penchant for melodrama and juvenile narcissism makes him the single most endearing nemesis in all of movie storydom for me because we both hate him and have pity for him – because he is US.
Silver Linings Playbook
Everybody’s mentally ill! A dysfunctional romantic comedy about Pat (Bradley Cooper in his usual flexible acting excellence) is home from the mental hospital after 8 months. He was sent there because he had a hostile outburst beating up his wife’s adulterous partner after catching them at home. Pat is delusional in that he thinks he can fix his marriage and his wife will return to him. But when he meets brutally honest Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence is phenomenal), who goes sexually promiscuous crazy after her beloved husband died, he gets sidetracked into discovering what is reality, and it ain’t what he thought.
This is all about how funny mental illness can be. Of course, I’m being facetious, because the mental illness becomes a hook for the storytellers to have fun with the ironic contrast of honest crazy people versus the delusionary dishonesty of normal people. In the real world, this stuff is not funny, but movies are not the real world, they are parables using a fictional world to make us see ourselves through different eyes and therefore learn something about ourselves.
There’s certainly room for some to see this as the dysfunctional Hollywood worldview of reality that is so jaded and cynical that it must have antiheroes and dysfunction to be entertained because the storytellers are themselves nihilists who are numb to hope and goodness. You know, the juvenile pseudo-philosophizing of “how do we know WE are not the insane and the insane are the normal?”
But I think that is too simplistic. Because this is in the end a very traditional love story in terms of discovering one’s selfishness and learning to love the person who cares for you, not the fantasy you’ve created of someone else. It is about facing reality and giving up false pictures of the world in our minds. It does have that element of showing how some of the people in the “normal world,” like Pat’s OCD gambling father, and his doting mother, and best friend and wife are as mentally screwed up or unhappy as any inmate. It also shows a certain insanity that is a part of sports fans (“Fan-atics”). The family’s father is an Eagles fan who has superstitious religious like behavior he lives out in his devotion. But that craziness is also on display in many fans who paint themselves up and get in fights at the sports arena without reason – just like the neurosis and explosions in the asylum. Let’s be honest, there really are things in “normal life” that are acceptable, but are in fact crazy.
And here is what I like about that. There is an element of honesty in Pat and his love interest, Tiffany, that is not in the “normal” people around them. Their frankness, their lack of social filters in saying inappropriate, but truthful statements in public, their open misery and inability to play the game of being happy or normal when they are not, are all reflections of an honesty of facing their flaws that is the beginning of a fully human life.
I could not help but see this movie as a metaphor for Christian faith – not the movie’s intent, but in my own triggered thoughts. I believe that the more one gets closer to God, the more one sees how bad in our soul we really are. How inherently selfish, but in clever secret ways that make us look “normal.” It’s like the closer you get to God, the more screwed up you see that you are, and the less willing you are to try to deny it, so the more honest you become in confessing it. But also, the more vulnerable and trusting in God that you are because you consider yourself more and more helpless and unable to be that “good person” that everyone aspires to be, but no one truly is. This does lead to some changed behavior of course, but it does not get rid of the “diagnosis.”
And that looks crazy to the world. To the world, that’s low self-esteem, that’s neurotic negativity or “fear religion” or “worm theology.” They think that it hampers our human potential. I mean, after all, if a religion is healthy, it should result in us seeing ourselves as basically good, which would make us become better people with positive thoughts, right?
Wrong. The belief in humanity’s inherent goodness is the delusion of the “normal world” with all its facades and games of cover up. This unwillingness to face the truth is the worst sort of dishonesty, it’s lying to ourselves and it is the true insanity. It creates the very self-righteousness that such people accuse Christians of being. It is not the Christian who sees himself as increasingly sinful before a holy God that is crazy and self-righteous, it is the fool who nestles in his normality of innate human goodness.
Before you can live fully human you must face the tragic honest reality that everybody’s “mentally ill.”
The Life of Pi
Visually stunning, spiritually confusing. The Life of Pi is the story of Pi, a young Indian boy whose family owns a zoo in India. Because of political troubles in the country, the father puts his family and animals on a ship to Canada with the hopes to sell the animals to America and start their life over. Unfortunately, the ship sinks in a perfect storm and only Pi survives in a life boat – with a Bengal tiger.
Well, the movie is really so much more than that. Because you see, it begins with Pi as an older thirtysomething telling his story to a writer. And he explains in the very beginning that this is a story that will help him to find God. So that is the stated purpose of the story right from the start. We see Pi as a young boy who is curiously spiritual. His father is a secular humanist who lost any faith when western medicine cured his polio instead of his gods doing so. Pi’s mother remains a Hindu who believes in millions of gods. So there is that unity of opposites set up to contrast the extremes fighting for the soul of the boy. Atheism versus religion. Reason versus Revelation. We see Pi as a young boy explaining how he was raised as a Hindu but then found Jesus Christ. Yes, he explains how a Catholic priest led him to realize that Jesus Christ died for his sins and faith in Jesus atoned for his sins (In a church as full of icons and statues of deity as any Hindu temple). Pretty plain and clear.
Only there’s just one more thing. Pi THEN discovers Islam and becomes a Muslim, citing “Allahu Akbar” (a phrase that if one hears today, one should dive for cover). It’s as if he is “trying out” every religion in his spiritual quest. He is teased for being a Hindu Christian Muslim and eventually a Jew too as he teaches Kabbala at the university. From then on, it’s always a generic reference to “god,” Except once when we see Pi pray to the Hindu deity Vishnu for providing himself as a life giving fish on the stranded lifeboat. So he remains a polytheist. In essence this is a story of multiculturalism, or the attempt to show the legitimacy of all religious narratives as a part of the truth, much like the story of the blind men and the elephant.
The theological underpinnings of multiculturalism is polytheism. That is, all roads to lead to god or the gods or the goddesses, or whatever “non-offensive” term you use of your deity or your ultimate or your whatever. One cannot propose that one’s own religion is superior to others because they are all “masks of god,” and to suggest one religion is true and the others are false is religious imperialism. This is why relativism is the epistemology, and often ontology, of multiculturalism. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. It is not hard to see the self-refuting nature of such ludicrous ideas but many still hold to the fairy tale of relativism in today’s pomo culture that seeks to intolerantly oppress all absolute worldviews in the name of tolerance. Well, really mostly only the oppression of the Judeo-Christian worldview because for some reason multiculturalists seem to be often anti-Semitic and anti-Christian and to protect Muslim absolutism because it is an arch-enemy of Judeo-Christianity (the enemy of my enemy and all that). Which is ironic, since Multiculturalists are among the first to be eliminated under Sharia law, along with their compatriots: Feminists, homosexuals, atheists, and intellectuals. But that is another story.
So the entire story is like Castaway on the ocean, but with a young kid, a tiger, and as it turns out, a wounded zebra, a hyena and an orangutan. One by one, they die and the kid is left alone with this tiger, who rules the boat and forces the kid to live on a little raft he put together tied to the boat a safe distance away. This is kind of a parable about man and nature as the boy learns to live and let live with the tiger, helping each other to survive. It’s all part of the current “spirit of the age” or zeitgeist of environmentalism and animal rights. It’s a dominant theme in Hollywood from Avatar to the Lorax to the upcoming Noah and a multitude of corporate conspiracies: Man must learn to coexist with nature in a symbiotic relationship. Okay, I’m all for animal movies, and I love “dogs are people too” stories just as much as the next guy. Anthropomorphising animals is in our souls (more on that in a second). But let’s not be stupid. The Romantic notion that harmony can be found by man submitting to the chaos of nature is pure foolishness. The best movie that operates as a parable that depicts this foolishness and its consequences in reality is Grizzly Man which is a true story about the fool who thought he was the protector of the Grizzlies in Alaska, only to be eaten by one. Nature is to be tamed by man through technology and conservation and planned administration. That was the point of Genesis in tending the garden, and of being given “dominion over nature” and the command by God to “subdue it.” Because nature is unruly and man is the one who can harness it for good through application of his control over it. This does not justify pollution or criminal negligence of the environment (It never did), but neither does it justify the pagan idolatry of the earth that seeks to place man as a servant of the earth rather than the earth as a servant of man.
But maybe the movie is hinting at this same point.
At the very end of the story, we discover that Pi’s story was not believed by the insurance adjusters who sought the reason for the ship sinking. They could never find out why it did sink, but they pushed Pi into telling them a story that was not so unbelievable that they could use for their insurance claims. Finally, Pi then tells the story of himself and several other human survivors on his boat, his wounded mother, a couple others and a mean ship’s cook who ended up killing the other dying survivors. And then we learn that maybe, just maybe, the animal story was an allegory of what really happened and that Pi told the story with animals because the reality was too painful to face. Each of the animals represented different people who survived on the lifeboat. We never really know for sure if that is the case, but Pi concludes by asking the writer, and us, “Which story is the better story?” The animals of course. And then he says, “Now you understand God” or something to that effect. So, I see this movie saying that stories about God are the way that we “cover” the harshness of reality for us to be able to survive with hope in a brutal world.
But I think the claim is equally applicable toward the secularist or materialist. I think that the materialist paradigm is used to construct naturalist narratives of explaining away spiritual reality in order to salve the guilty consciences of people into thinking that they are not ultimately responsible before their Creator for their actions. The depravity of mankind is so thoroughly a part of who we are that we deceive ourselves to avoid accepting moral responsibility. The guilty are always looking for loopholes and telling stories that justify themselves. But I would certainly agree that the harsh reality of life dominated by suffering is hard to understand in a universe created by God. It’s one of the dominant themes of all my storytelling as well (It’s the meta-theme of my Chronicles of the Nephilim saga). Jesus used parables (and so did the Prophets) to conceal from the hard-hearted, but to reveal to the open-hearted, because God’s Kingdom could best be understood by finite fallen humanity by way of imaginative analogy. It’s not that we “mythologize” this life to avoid harsh reality, but rather that we need imagination to understand ultimate reality that is beyond this suffering life and our comprehension of it. I write about this in my new book, Myth Became Fact: Storytelling, Imagination and Apologetics in the Bible.
But there is another side to this story. Remember the kid’s father? The secular humanist? Well, he taught Pi a lesson one day to show him that nature is not man’s friend. Pi thought to give a chunk of meat to befriend the Bengal tiger in the zoo. The tiger appeared to be cautiously ready to receive the meat from the boy’s hands through the cage bars. But his father pulled him away before anything could happen. Then he showed the boy a live goat at the cage entrance and how the tiger grabbed the goat and killed it and ate it. So his point was that we are deluded to see ourselves in the reflections of the eyes of the animals. Anthropomorphism is a self-delusion. Nature is red in tooth and claw. So the anti-anthropomorphism of the father was internalized in the boy when he recast the lifeboat human scenario as animals. In other words, maybe the delusion lies in thinking man is superior to the animals. Pi does reverse anthropomorphism because the humans had acted more like animals than the other way around.
So this is a complex narrative about how we tell our stories to understand what is incomprehensible to us. On the one hand, I detest the modern/postmodern rejection of reality as a mere construct of fiction storytelling, yet, I certainly agree that reality cannot be fully accessed through empirical senses and “brute” experience or “raw facts.” Ain’t no such things. And “meaning” transcends observation. God transcends observation and is understood through story (after all, the Bible is a metanarrative embodied in a collection of narratives about God at work in his people). But The Life of Pi seemed to say that the story is more important than “what really happened,” which has a ring of manipulation to it. After all, all manner of evil has been perpetrated by false narratives (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Das Capital, etc.). For Christians, the claim of atonement for sins is based on a historically factual resurrection from the dead by Jesus Christ. If his resurrection was “just a story” and did not really happen, then we are still dead in our sins. However, a bodily resurrection without the narrative of Israel’s Messiah behind it means nothing. It is a mere scientific oddity.
So I certainly agree that we access meaning through the story, not through mere empirical or rational accuracy. And therein lies the movie’s thoughtful challenge. It is not so much the nature of fiction in our storytelling that would concern me about The Life of Pi as it is its polytheism and relativism related to God. It’s the god talk that has problems, not the story talk. After all, most storytellers tell stories about reality that are clothed in fictional terms because to express them outright would cause hostility from the blind prejudices of the audience. Explaining hard reality in other terms that an audience can relate to is a universal storytelling axiom. In the end, affirming a contradictory polytheism is a spiritually detrimental worldview to be communicating through that fiction.
But boy, does The Life of Pi make you think. And I like that.
Hatfields & McCoys (2012)
Boy, was I angry that I was skipped over for the new release of this dvd at Netflix, and then it took THREE MONTHS waiting at the top of my queue to get the dang thing. Sometimes I love Netflix and sometimes I hate it.
Well, this is an engrossing and fascinating exploration of the self-destruction of revenge much in the way that Othello is of jealousy or Macbeth is of pride. It is Shakespearean, and rich with human understanding. Kevin Costner is at his best as a broody quiet patriarch of the Hatfields, Devil Anse Hatfield (of all the names he could have had, how perfect is that?), and Bill Paxton as the emotionally explosive patriarch Randall McCoy. This is a classic unity of opposites that seeks to capture the tenor of our very modern day “uncivil” discourse. Hatfield is an atheist who has a strong moral sense, but also rejects higher causes such as the Civil War that he deserted. McCoy is a classic Southern Christian man, who also has a strong moral sense mixed in with an addition of bigotry against unbelievers such as, you guessed it, Hatfield. So both sides are strong in their moral convictions from different viewpoints, even unyielding at times, and thus the conflict brews.
As I watched the miniseries, I must say that I began to see the obvious moral message being incarnated in the story: Extremes of both sides are the same self-destructive spirit. Okay, not too bad. So, a religious McCoy praying for the soul of a man he is about to murder is shown to be no different from the godless who kill as well. But the context was that Hatfield started out as the more moral man because he was the one who held back from revenge and experienced the injustice of false accusations from the McCoys. So the atheist was the more moral man than the hypocrite Christian. Okay, typical stereotype bigotry against Christians in the movies. And Hatfield only jumped in after his brother was killed in cold blood in front of a crowd by three McCoys without provocation. Since the law would not bring justice, he started retaliating and thus the rest of the movie. And he always sought to try to bring resolution. He was depicted as without any other option than “cutting off the head of the snake” that would not stop striking. SO Hatfield is the obvious favored protagonist.
But McCoy is shown to be a religious man who descends into madness and atheism when he concludes that no God would let his children be slaughtered. His is a story of how one loses his faith. He starts rejecting God as being a meaningless concept in a cruel world.
So, I started to get annoyed that even though it was making a point that ALL extremes are bad, the faith of Christianity appeared to me to be without any power in bringing reconciliation. And this is the biggest lie of all. Yes, FALSE religion leads to self destruction, but true Christianity does not.
So I was blown away when the ending of the story has the little “innocent lamb” Hatfield, a mentally handicapped kid get hanged, which stops the feud because the insanity of it all is finally exposed in this blood sacrifice of innocence. Yes, you got it. The innocent Son sacrificed that stopped the war. Hatfield gives a speech to his family of repentance from the hate. Quite soul stirring.
Then the last shot of the movie was Anse Hatfield GETTING BAPTIZED! After all the bloodshed, it was HE who becomes a Christian and embraces the Faith because he understood it through his own journey of justice and peace and repentance. WHOAH. Now THIS was superb storytelling. One man’s loss of faith countered by another man’s discovery of faith. I have no problem showing religious hypocrisy and religion that is evil, AS LONG AS you contrast it with TRUE faith and religion. Otherwise, you are just saying ALL religion is false, which is itself, bad faith. Hatfields and McCoys is a story that captured powerfully the essence of true reconciliation through the cross that and I was moved to my soul with repentance.
Lincoln
Oscar winning performance in a dreadfully B-O-R-I-N-G Movie. Daniel-Day is superb. Warm, human, weak, but a great and noble “man of the ages”. He brings Lincoln to life. The writing for his character and Tommy Lee Jones’s Stevens was brilliant. The rest of it was BORING political procedural. Did I say Boring already?
OMG, I wanted to leave after the first 15 minutes. But I stayed, so you don’t have to. Don’t worry, you’re not a racist if you don’t see this movie. You’re just a moviegoer that wants a good story.
The entire dramatic question of the story is “Will Lincoln get the votes he needs to secure the 13th Amendment?” The moral dilemma was that Lincoln was told he could have peace or the Amendment, but he could not have both. But he sought for both on moral conviction. And the movie is taken up with the completely uninteresting storyline — attempting to be interesting by adding the brilliant cynicism of James Spader and cohorts as the first lobbyists — of trying to convince each and every man to vote for the Amendment.
Look, of course, this is a truly important and truly noble part of history that we all need to know about. And I’m sure it works well in the original historical political book. BUT A MOVIE IS NOT THE PLACE TO TRY TO EDUCATE US LIKE THIS. We want humanity, emotion, human drama, and this movie only delivers snatches of that humanity buried under boring political procedures. Let me say, that I actually LOVE political intrigue in movies. Braveheart, Gladiator, Rob Roy, and others only work as epics because of the court intrique and machinations. Game of Thrones and The Borgias are entirely about such things, and they all work just fine. But only because they are engorged with the human drama of the main players. The political intrigue embodies the personal conflicts AND is NOT focused on the details of the political procedures. In contrast, this movie is an endless litany of unknown men and their unknown faces being “persuaded” to vote, interspersed with Lincoln and his men talking about those unknown men and all their unknown details, interspersed with some very cool movie moments of Lincoln telling stories, ending with a complete roll call of E-V-E-R-Y S-I-N-G-L-E V-O-T-E in the House. Look, I know Spielberg thinks it is historically important to “call out” those who voted for and against, but that means he has capitulated to using movies as a political tool for indoctrination (regardless of how worthy the cause is). It’s a movie, for goodness’ sake, not an original forensic document. We don’t want to hear and see each and every vote, we want to know “what happens next.” Oh, look at me, trying to lecture the great Steven Spielberg. I’ll stop now.
But my point is that Spielberg tried to make this very much like an updated Frank Capra movie. Of course, he’s done so in its beautiful look and feel, but not in soul. It is not enough to have a couple brilliant characters, you must have a brilliant storyline, and sadly, Lincoln does not. He should learn how to do it right from his own Amistad. That movie brought it. This movies blows it.
To be fair there were several VERY human and powerful moments that moved me to a tear, and that much I’ll gladly admit. A very unique scene where Lincoln’s son forgoes the cliché scene of visiting the war wounded to see their hacked up bodies, but instead follows a cart to find the pile of severed limbs being buried. Whoah. Lincoln taking time to talk to black soldiers and to common men to get their advice. Awesome. One scene of Lincoln struggling with his wife Mary over her manic troubles was truly sympathetic yet honest, and captured that suffering in both their lives. And an amazing last scene of the movie when Tommy Lee Jones as Stevens brings home the actual bill passed by the House. It was a beautiful surprise revelation that made the movie. But of course, Jones owned the movie, even more than Lewis, but that is because he had the strongest character arc that embodied the theme and meaning of the movie: You must subjugate your personal convictions to negotiation if you are to achieve the public good in a democracy. And this is NOT moral compromise or lack of character, but rather our responsibility as humans in a divided world of imperfection. Lincoln had already accepted this before the movie began (which is why he is not as interesting a protagonist), but Tommy Lee, as the chief “extremist Pro-Lifer” – whoops, I mean Abolitionist, — was the one whose journey to finally give up his “radical” absolutist stance in order to actually bring about good in the world of the abolition of slavery. The “all or nothing” mentality is actually irresponsible and of low moral character in a democracy.
This is why the movie really should have been titled, “The 13th Amendment” and a story about the journey of Jones’s Thaddeus Stevens’ goal to abolish slavery, only to realize his own human weaknesses and his need to bend to his fellow humans in order to bring change and peace.
I have to say I was impressed by the fact that Spielberg, a well-known leftist in Hollywood, actually told a story where he openly revealed the Democrats as the bad guys. And he didn’t do the usual of turning it around and making the Republicans the bad guys. He showed that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery and racism, and the Republican Party was the party created to stop slavery. Of course, there were nuances that he dealt with as well which also made it more even handed (Not all Republicans were radical abolitionists, and some Democrats did vote for the Amendment, they were needed to win after all).
But regardless, I think this movie has enough in it for both sides to see their own biases affirmed, which actually makes it pretty fairly done. No doubt, the Republicans will see in it the affirmation of their pro-life struggle, and the Democrats as the party of slavery and racism. They will point to this dark underbelly as reflective of what has been ignored in education and the media, along with the Democratic Party’s history as the origin and membership of the KKK, and the main force behind Jim Crow laws and against the early Civil Rights movement (See here). And also no doubt, the Democrats will see it as an affirmation of their gay marriage laws struggle as well as a justification for Obama’s Executive Decisions to avoid accountability to the legislative branch (because of perceived righteousness of cause), as well as his antipathy to State’s rights.
But I think all this simply means that the movie Lincoln pretty accurately captured the universal political struggles that never change through history and keep repeating themselves in the endless struggle of a divided population.
But did it have to be so BORING?
Twilight: Breaking Dawn (Part 2)
As bad as Breaking Dawn Part 1, was, this one is not much melodramatically better. But you have to admit, Kristen is A-L-M-O-S-T acting in this one. I have to say, she is getting a teency bit better with each of the series. She is no longer making her trademark shirks and ticks and lookaways. Go, team Jacob.
The first two of the movies in the series were very strong powerful arguments for sexual abstinence before marriage. Yes, the entire vampire mythology became a metaphor for the Mormon author’s moral worldview in a way that I have never seen in Hollywood movies. Wait until marriage because it is a fusion of souls and bodies that is not to be taken lightly. Suck on that natural law, fornicators.
And then Breaking Dawn Part 1 was one of the most pro-life stories in movie history. Do not kill the baby, even if Bella dies. Wow, those Mormons don’t win national elections with beliefs like that, but they sure can tell stories that resonate with the souls of the audience, when that audience does NOT have their political radars on. Ha, ha, Hollywood, you’ve been punked.
Part 2 is all about protecting the new child, the fruit of Bella and Edward’s union that appears to be a unique half-breed of humanity and vampirinity. The head vampire council in Italy does not like this “unknown.” For “unknowns” are what can expose them and have them all destroyed. They prefer having control by maintaining the “known,” so they want to kill the child and come, seeking a big battle with the vampires and now werewolves who protect her, the climax of the film.
What interests me in this story is the universal quest for immortality that resides in all of us. It is essentially an historical meme that still plays today, god and human hybrids. That’s right, the child, Renessme, or Ness for short, is basically a Nephilim. That is, the story reflects the ancient worlds’ notion of the gods mating with humans and bearing them offspring that are half human half god. Most ancient religions have this meme embedded in their stories. Genesis 6:1-4 talks about it as the divine sons of God in heaven mating with women and bearing them the Nephilim. I write about this storyline in my own Biblical fantasy novel series, Chronicles of the Nephilim. It’s all the rage these days, Nephilim and the end of the world. But it’s more than a fad, it’s a universal drive in human nature. That’s why it keeps coming back in stories and it works so well.
The idea reflects the notion that man seeks to be like gods. The vampires, as immortals represent this “shining glory” as their own skin shines in the daylight, and they live forever. In this mythology, they also have individual powers like the ability to control the elements or read minds or produce shields of protection. Sounds a little like superheros? Yep. Sounds a little like the ancient pantheon of gods? You bet. We recycle these stories because WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE, AND NONE OF US WANT TO. We long for immortality, the desire to be united with divinity. I think Genesis captures this inherent longing in man best as man refuses to submit to his Creator and instead violates the image of God in man. He does this through murder, as well as the violation of the heavenly earthly divide. He seeks to be like God and so falls from his exalted place over creation, only to hunger because of his fallenness that the Bible calls the sinful nature.
Now, this is where Stephanie Meyer’s Mormonism comes in. Mormonism believes that we become gods (the immortal vampires), and for women, the highest pursuit in life is to become a god through this divine marriage. They believe in eternal marriage. That is why the ending of the movie stresses the words “forever” in relation to the happiness and married love between Edward and Bella. They will live forever and be married in love forever. Now, we all use the metaphor of “forever” when we speak of love. I do with my wife. But Mormons believe this literally, in that eternal marriages are the culmination of us becoming gods and marrying and having our own planets to reside over forever. Sooooooo, it’s not quite the same thing to us “normal” people and our emotional exaggerations.
But don’t let that ruin the movie for you. The reason the story resonates with so man is not just because of the female pornography of it, but because it taps into that impulse, that desire that we all have to seek immortality in our fallenness.
Darren Aronofsky’s Noah: Environmentalist Wacko
Okay, here is the full article I wrote analyzing the Noah script. More here than where it was published online.
By Brian Godawa
As a screenwriter of films like To End All Wars and Alleged which deal with faith, and as the author of a novel called Noah Primeval about what led up to the Great Flood, I am especially conscious of issues relating to the intersection of Hollywood and the Bible and I’ve been keeping tabs on a film that lives at that intersection, a film called Noah, written by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel. I’ve also watched with great anticipation as a post-Passion of The Christ Hollywood tries to come to grips with how to reach the massive faith-friendly audience and I’m concerned about the phenomenon that I see, which is films being developed for that audience by people who don’t understand it and are thus destined to fail. Then when they do fail, as expected, smug Hollywood executives declare “See, that audience doesn’t really exist.” I don’t want that to keep happening. I want films to be properly developed so that they can succeed. It is in that spirit that I offer my analysis of Aronofsky and Handel’s Noah script. I believe that it’s never too late to right a ship that is heading in the wrong direction.
Having got a chance to read an undated version of the script for Noah I want to warn you. If you were expecting a Biblically faithful retelling of the story of the greatest mariner in history and a tale of redemption and obedience to God you’ll be sorely disappointed. Noah paints the primeval world of Genesis 6 as scorched arid desert, dry cracked earth, and a gray gloomy sky that gives no rain – and all this, caused by man’s “disrespect” for the environment. In short, an anachronistic doomsday scenario of ancient global warming. How Neolithic man was able to cause such anthropogenic catastrophic climate change without the “evil” carbon emissions of modern industrial revolution is not explained. Nevertheless, humanity wanders the land in nomadic warrior tribes killing animals for food or wasteful trophies.
In this oppressive world, Noah and his family seek to avoid the crowds and live off the land. Noah is a kind of rural shaman, and vegan hippy-like gatherer of herbs. Noah explains that his family “studies the world,” “healing it as best we can,” like a kind of environmentalist scientist. But he also mysteriously has the fighting skills of an ancient Near Eastern Ninja (Hey, it’s a movie, give it a break).
Noah maintains an animal hospital to take care of wounded animals or those who survive the evil “poachers,” of the land. Just whose animal rights laws they are violating, I am not sure, since there are only fiefdoms of warlords and tribes. Be that as it may, Noah is the Mother Teresa of animals.
Though God has not spoken to men or angels for a long time, Noah is haunted by recurring dreams of a rainstorm and flood that he surmises is God’s judgment on man because as Noah says, “At our hand, all he created is dying.” The trees, the animals, and the environment. “If we change, if we work to save it, perhaps he will too [save us].” Or as grandfather Methuselah reiterates, “We have destroyed this world, so we ourselves will be destroyed. Justice.” Oh, and I almost forgot, they kill people too, but it’s not really as important. In another place, “We have murdered each other. We raped the world. The Creator has judged us.” The notion of human evil is more of an afterthought or symptom of the bigger environmental concern of the great tree hugger in the sky.
Noah seeks advice from his grandfather, Methuselah, the oldest man alive, who lives in a cave. Unfortunately for fighting pacifist Noah, he has to go through the Watcher’s Land to get there. The Watchers are angels who came down from heaven to help fallen humanity by granting them wonders of knowledge from magic to science to stars, metal, and fire. But when mankind turned that knowledge into weapons of war and tools of environmental devastation, God banished the Watchers to earth and turned his back on them. Now, they reside as 18-feet tall, six-armed grumpy angelic complainers who resent mankind.
Through tricky movie dialogue, Noah convinces the Watchers to help him and he receives a magic seed from Methuselah that blooms a magical forest in the desert. It’s really a quite imaginative and powerful scene that shows God’s miraculous provision. Noah uses this timber to build his boat (Wait a second. Wouldn’t that make him an evil clear cutting lumberjack?). So the Watchers help him build the craft. Followed by another beautiful sequence of a magical thread of water that spreads out from the forest into all the world that calls the animals two by two to come to the ark.
Like a magical Mesopotamian Dr. Doolittle, Noah has the ability to “lead” the animals peacefully into the ark as they come from every corner of the earth. And yes, even the insects. Well, they finish building the ark, the rains start, the evil mobs try to get on the ark, but the Watchers fight them off, blah, blah, blah, movie action and we are at the midpoint of the movie, with Noah and his family on the ark, weathering out the flood.
What Noah doesn’t know is that evil warlord Akkad snuck his way into the boat and plans to kill all the men and rape all the wives to start civilization as his own brood of evil minions.
Meanwhile, Noah has himself become a bit psychotic, like an environmentalist or animal rights activist who concludes that people do not deserve to survive because of what they’ve done to the environment and to animals. Noah deduces that God’s only reason for his family on the boat is to shepherd the animals to safety, “and then mankind disappears. It would be a better world.” He concludes that there will be no more births in this family so that when they start over in the new world, they will eventually die out, leaving the animals in a humanless paradise of ecoharmony and peace. As Noah says, “The creatures of the earth, the world itself, shall be safe.” (Except for slamming intergalactic meteors, non-anthropocentric global warming, ice ages, sun spots, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and that “survival of the fittest,” eat-or-be-eaten thing. But other than that… “safe.”)
His ethical reasoning? The same as all environmentalist activists: The ends justify the means. “We must weigh those [human] lives against all creation.” Shades of Malthus and Al Gore.
There’s only one problem. One of the women on the ark is pregnant, and Noah decides that if it is a boy, it can live, but if it is a girl, he must kill it. We can’t have more of those nasty little virus-like humans swarming the earth. So most of the last half of the script is a family killer thriller like Sleeping With the Enemy, that asks the dark dramatic movie question “will Noah kill the child if it is a girl or not?” Ancient sex-selection infanticide.
The woman gives birth to twin girls, and Noah gets all the way up to killing not one but two female infants, after killing evil meat-eating Akkad. But in the end, he fails. He says “to himself, to the Creator,” “I can’t. I can’t do it. I am sorry. I am so sorry.” He is just too compassionate to carry out God’s cruel plan. Noah is more loving than God.
The denouement shows a miserable drunken Noah with his growing family of future earth-killing grandchildren being told by his daughter-in-law to teach them “about the world around them and how to live in it.” Because, “Maybe if you give them your wisdom they will do better with their world than we did with ours.”
CREATIVE LICENSE
It is no secret that Aronofsky set out to make a political propaganda piece for environmentalism. He said so himself to entertainment reporters:
“It’s about environmental apocalypse which is the biggest theme, for me, right now for what’s going on on this planet. So I think it’s got these big, big themes that connect with us. Noah was the first environmentalist.” (see here: SlashFilm.com)
Before analyzing the message of this story, we need to get a few things straight. First off, there is nothing wrong with retelling stories of the past to highlight an issue in the present. In fact, pretty much all period pieces do this. The King’s Speech was about more than courage to do public speaking, it was about standing up to global terrorism. The Crucible was about more than the Salem Witch Trials, it was a metaphor for McCarthyism. Heck, even the Bible does it. It’s the way we writers write. We interpret the present through the past and the past through the present. But is our analogy or metaphor legitimate and germane to the original meaning? Or is it a distortion akin to making someone say the opposite of what they actually said?
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with engaging in creative license, whether it is magical seeds or six-armed Watchers, or even Noah as a warrior. I don’t even think there is a problem in using non-biblical sources like the Book of Enoch or the Sumerian version of the Flood story, where unlike in the Bible, Noah receives dreams about the coming Deluge. The question is, does it support the spirit or meaning of the original story, or the original author’s intent. Bible believing Christians do not necessarily own this category of Biblical interpretation. The Bible doesn’t say what vocation Noah had before the Flood, only what he was afterward (a tiller of the soil). So if a Christian attacks the notion of Noah as a warrior shaman, he may really be illustrating his own cultural prejudice of the notion of a white bearded old farmer which is not in the Bible either. Saying “That didn’t happen on the ark,” is sheer ignorance because nobody knows what happened on the ark, because it wasn’t written down! Hyper-literalists are too often ignorant of their own unbiblical notions.
On the other hand, postmodernists fancy playing God and changing the meaning of texts to suit their agenda because they believe language creates reality. Therefore, it’s okay to “make the Bible say what we want it to say.” This is manipulative narcissistic nonsense, but that doesn’t change the fact that understanding the original intent is not always easy. All authors unavoidably bring some of their own meaning to the text. The real question is: Does the creative license or embellishment serve the meaning or theme intended in the original story or does it twist it into an alien meaning against the original story, a favorite propaganda tactic of postmoderns, leftists, and radicals.
Was Noah the first environmentalist and animal rights activist? Was the moral failure of man in Genesis, disrespect for the environment? Was that why God completely destroyed the environment and killed all of the animals of the land except those on the ark?
Of course not.
THE THEME
First, let me say that no Christian that I am aware of believes that we should carelessly pollute the environment and kill animals without concern for the consequences of our actions. Those kind of accusations are straw man caricatures from ignorant anti-Christian bigotry. The Bible itself is where we get the notion of being responsible stewards of the earth. Genesis 2:15 says that God put man in the Garden “to work it and keep it.” The basic meaning of the Hebrew text is to exercise great care while cultivating it. If anything, Adam was the first conservationist, not environmentalist, because he was to work the land, use human planning to overcome the thorns and thistles of nature. Which brings us to the next command that God also gives to mankind relating to the environment.
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 heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
The Hebrew words for subduing the earth and having dominion are military terms of conquest. So, we see that man is to use his technological insights to forcefully harness the wild and chaotic forces of animals and the environment to bring them into good use. This is not a command to pollute or pillage the earth, but neither is it a subordination of man as a servant of the earth. The earth was made for man, not man for the earth, unlike pagan earth religion or environmental extremism, which claims that man is made for the earth, not the earth for man.
Because the Bible was the first in history to divest nature from deity, it argued that nature is NOT a personal being or filled with animistic spirits or a part of deity. This was the foundation of technological progress that brought about a better world of extended life spans, modern science and medicine, travel, better food production, and much more. If nature is impersonal, then we are justified in harnessing it for human good. But that is not a call to exploitation as previous verses explained. The Law of God even had rules for treating beasts of burden humanely (Ex 20:10; Deut 25:4; Prov 12:10) But they were still beasts of burden for human use. Because humanity is in the image of God, animals are not.
Having defended responsible conservation of the environment, nevertheless, I have to say that the movie script for Noah is deeply anti-Biblical in it’s moral vision. While the Bible commands mankind to “work and keep” the garden of earth as its stewards, the sin that brought about the judgment of the Flood was NOT violence against the environment as depicted in the script, it was violence against God and his image in man. That’s no minor difference.
The thread of evil that leads from the Garden to the Waters began with Cain’s murder of Abel, which was considered the ultimate violence against the image of God that mankind was created in (Gen 1:27). This was because God accepted Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. So the violence was based on sacred relationship with God himself. It wasn’t the ground that cried out to God, it was Abel’s blood that cried out to God for justice. Lamech then follows this pattern in killing a young man and boasting about it (Gen 4:23-24). The lineage of Cain eventually dies out and God replaces Abel’s lineage with a new Seth, son of Adam, “in his likeness, after his image” (Gen 5:3).
In Genesis 6 we read about mankind multiplying on the face of the earth. The Sons of God, angelic beings from God’s heavenly host, mate with the daughters of men to give birth to giants. Okay, this is very weird and wild to contemplate, and I don’t have time to explain it in detail here. You’ll have to read my book Noah Primeval to find out more. But suffice it to say that the main meaning here is that the heavenly beings violated a holy separation of mankind from divinity (Jude 6-7; 2Pet 2:4-10). This mixing of “images” reflects man’s perennial pursuit of trying to attain godlike status. Remember the Original Sin in the Garden? “You will be like God!” said the Serpent (who was strangely absent from the Garden of Eden in the Noah script). Man is seeking to become like God by his power over life and by his constant pursuit of divine prerogative or power. This will continue through to the Tower of Babel incident as well, when mankind tries to build a temple tower that connects heaven and earth.
The Bible then says that Noah, however was righteous, and he was “pure in his generation” (Gen 6:9). The implication here is that Noah is not merely walking with God as an obedient follower, but that he is not part of that corrupted miscegenation of angelic and human cohabitation and hybridization. Again, the image of God undefiled.
By the time God says that the wickedness of man is so great on the earth (6:5), and that the “earth was corrupt in God’s sight and the earth was filled with violence” (6:11) there is absolutely nothing that has been said about man treating the environment with violence. It is completely about violence against the image of God and rebellion against God himself, not the environment. As Near Eastern scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky explains, the concept of the earth being “corrupted” or “polluted” was a theological expression of how man’s sin against God’s image makes man’s very physical inhabitation religiously “unclean.” The earth had a physical impurity akin to the profane abominations that defiled the land of Canaan:
In the biblical worldview, the murders before the flood contaminated the land and created a state of physical pollution which had to be eradicated by physical means (the flood). Although this concept may seem strange to us, it is not surprising to find it here in the cosmology of Israel, for Israel clearly believed that moral wrongdoings defile physically. This is explicitly stated with three sins — murder, idolatry, and sexual abominations. (Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic And Its Significance For Our Understanding Of Genesis 1-9,” Biblical Archaeologist, December 1977, 147-155.)
And after the flood, the image of God is again offered as God’s basis for establishing capital punishment as his primary concern in justice, not the environment (Gen 9:6). Shedding man’s blood in murder would now require just recompense of capital punishment. In the primeval history of Genesis what God cares about keeping sacred and invaluable is his image in man. And the murder and violation of that image of God is what pollutes the earth, not the other way around. As Frymer-Kensky concludes, The author(s) of Genesis wrote about the Flood “to illuminate fundamental Israelite ideas, i.e., the biblical ideals that law and the ‘sanctity of human life’ are the prerequisites of human existence upon the earth.”
In the script Noah, what God cares about is the environment, not so much man. As Noah reveals, “The world squirms beneath our foot, a poisoned husk. The Creator sees this, He mourns it, and will tolerate it no longer. He would annihilate all in an instant than watch this creeping rot… We must treat the world with mercy so that the Creator will show us mercy.”
Turning the tale of Noah into an environmentalist screed and animal rights diatribe does violence to the Biblical meaning and turns it into something entirely alien to the original meaning of the text. Admittedly, the script does include murder and violence against man as an additional “evil,” but this is secondary in the story. The primary sin of the script Noah is man’s violence against the environment. Which is kind of contradictory, don’t you think? Claiming that God destroys the entire environment because man was — well, destroying the environment?
And how in the world was Neolithic man able to destroy his environment and cause global warming anyway? Exactly where did the carbon emissions come from? Fred Flintstone SUVs? Industrial campfire smokestacks? The number of people on the planet in that distant age would have less impact on the climate than bison farts. It’s really quite ludicrous, but inadvertently hints at the historical and scientific fact that far greater global warming and cooling cycles have occurred in the past without man. It’s quite natural. Consider it the Circle of Life.
PSYCHO NOAH
Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the Aronofsky/Handel script is its portrayal of God in the moral worldview of Noah. I’m not talking about the fact that Noah is sinful in the movie or that he gets drunk. That is in the Bible. That’s not the problem. The problem is that Noah is depicted as attempting to follow God’s will in the script, a will that includes the complete annihilation of the human race, as opposed to the Genesis depiction of starting over with eight humans to repopulate and ultimately provide a Messiah.
Someone could well make the argument that Noah’s journey is one of realizing that his zeal for his environmental and animal rights cause has gone too far, and that he finally realizes that killing people is too extreme. There must be a balance of interests. In one scene, Japheth accidentally kills a lizard that will now die out because it was only one of two. Noah explodes in rage upon his son for his carelessness. Then he repents and realizes that “the same wickedness is in all of us.”
But I am skeptical of this “balance of interests” interpretation of the script. Noah does not have a revelation that he has made animals more important than humans, rather he has “realized” that the evil against animals is in all of them, such as his son. Then the very next thing he concludes is that there will be no wives on the ark and they are not going to repopulate humanity after the Flood. He says, “As long as there are men, creation is not safe.” Add to this, the fact that the animals aboard the ark help Noah to pin down his family so he can kill the infant girls. That clearly supports the notion of God being behind it all.
Also, at the end, when psycho Noah realizes that he cannot kill the baby girl to stop the human race, the reason is not because he realized he was too extreme against humans, but because he was too weak to follow through with God’s commands and his “higher cause” of genocide. This Humanistic worldview certainly tugs at the heartstrings of our hubris. Man’s weakness of compassion makes him superior to God.
Killing all humans but eight in order to start over (As the Bible portrays) may seem harsh to our thoroughly Modern Millie minds, but it reaffirms that Image of God in Man that gives man value despite the evil. God always saves a remnant of the righteous in order to bring about his Messianic plan of redemption. In Noah, man has no higher value than the animals and the environment. Noah wants to get rid of us all and return the environment to its pristine condition untouched by the presence of man. What is so disturbing is that this motivation to violence is exactly the worldview of many extremist leaders of environmentalism. Here are some documented samples of their human hate speech and dog whistles to violence:
“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed we must destroy the Judeo Christian religious tradition.”
(Australian philosopher Peter Singer, the “Father of Animal Rights.”)
“If you’ll give the idea a chance… you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions of other Earth-dwelling species.”
(The Voluntary Extinction Movement, quoted by Daniel Seligman in “Down With People,” in Fortune magazine, September 23, 1991)
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable, but a good thing…”
(Editorial in The Economist, December 28, 1988)
“Man is no more important than any other species… It may well take our extinction to set things straight.”
(David Foreman, Earth First! spokesman, quoted by M. John Fayhee in Backpacker magazine, September 1988, pg. 22)
“We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem to mankind. They have… more value – to me – than another human body, or a billion of them… Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
(David M. Graber, National Park Service biologist, in a review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in the Los Angeles Times Book Review, October 22, 1989, pg. 9)
“I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”
(Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace, quoted in Access to Energy Vol.17 No.4, December 1989)
“We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year old children to Asian brothels.”
(Carl Amery of the Green Party, quoted in Mensch & Energie, April 1983)
This violent hatred of humanity that is displayed in the movie script of Noah also seems to emanate from significant quarters of the environmentalist movement. But ironically, it is logically inevitable that if you deny the image of God in Man, and you elevate the environment over humanity, then you will inevitably wish to eliminate humanity for a better environment.
THE WATCHERS
Another significant deviation from Biblical truth in the Noah script is the identity of the Watchers. In the script, they are portrayed as misunderstood rebels who, like Noah, also are more compassionate than God. It seems everyone in this story is more compassionate than God.
As previously indicated, the Watchers of Biblical fame are Sons of God, or angelic beings who violated God’s separation of the heavenly and the earthly, and mated with human women (Gen 6:1-4; Num 13:32-33; Dan 4:13). The New Testament quotes from and paraphrases a non-canonical Jewish text called 1 Enoch that has retained a tradition of respect within Christian history (Jude; 2Pet 2:4-10). Though it is not considered Scripture, its picture of the fallen angels cohabiting with humans affirms the Biblical notion of these being rebel sorcerers, not well intentioned educators who get blamed for mankind’s misuse of good gifts.
Aronofsky apparently uses some of his notions of the Watchers from the book of 1 Enoch, such as the names of the angel Samyaza (1Enoch 6:3) and their act of revealing secrets to mankind as well as the idea that they helped Noah build the ark (67:2). But the script’s view is the opposite of the Biblical/Enochian view of the Watchers as rebels who reveal occultic forbidden secrets that are part of the reason why God sends the Flood.
There is one line of tradition in the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees (chapter 10) that depicts the Watchers as teaching Noah their secrets of herbs and healing to counter the corruption caused by demons, but this is not the Biblical or Enochian view.
Also, the script seems to equate the Watchers with the giants, whereas in both Enoch and the Bible, the giants are the progeny of the Watchers uniting with human women. An additional use of the name Og for one of the Watchers reflects a muddled reference to an apocryphal Book of Giants that refers to the exploits of a giant Og at the time of the Flood.
FADE OUT
All in all, the script for Noah is an uninteresting and unbiblical waste of a hundred and fifty million dollars that will ruin for decades the possibility of making a really great and entertaining movie of this Bible hero beloved by billions of religious believers, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. This movie will be rejected by millions of devoted Bible readers worldwide because once again it subverts their own sacred narrative with a political agenda of pagan earth religion that is offensive to their Faith. In a very real sense it engages in the very sin of the primeval history in Genesis: A denial of the image of God in man.
If Noah is released, and as I am predicting, does horrible numbers at the box office after being rejected by traditionalist Christians and Jews (in spite of the studio undoubtedly hiring faith-based marketing companies to spin it as “faithful”) as well as mainstream viewers who will instead choose whatever feel-good movie is in theaters that week, studio executives will gather in their suites on Monday morning and cluck about the elusive faith-based audience and how they never turn out for “their movies,” when it was in fact a movie made by someone outside of their community that was insulting, degrading and contrary to their deeply held beliefs and values.
Brian Godawa is the screenwriter for the award-winning feature film, To End All Wars, starring Kiefer Sutherland, and Alleged, starring Brian Dennehy and Fred Thompson and the author of Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment. His most recent book is Word Pictures: Knowing God Through Story and Imagination. His new novel series, the Chronicles of the Nephilim is an imaginative retelling of the primeval history of Genesis, the secret plan of the fallen Watchers, and the War of the Seed of the Serpent with the Seed of Eve: www.ChroniclesoftheNephilim.com
The first book in the series is about Noah and the Ark, Noah Primeval available at Amazon.com.
Machine Gun Preacher
Relativity Media
Directed by Marc Forster
Written by Jason Keller
From the opening scene of a Sudanese village pillaged by LRA terrorists who force children to kill their parents to the closing credit monologue of the real life Sam Childers’ plea to rescue the kidnapped Sudanese orphans by any means necessary, Machine Gun Preacher packs a punch to the gut of our moral conscience. And it does so with a nuanced spiritual and moral reasoning that challenges our American couch potato activism that prides itself in political debates over moral action. Oh, and did I say it involves Jesus?
Machine Gun Preacher is based on the true story of Sam Childers, a drug addicted motorcycle riding criminal who gets saved by Jesus and goes to help rescue the orphans of Sudan from kidnapping, enslavement, torture and murder by rebel terrorists.
The story begins with an unrepentant Sam being released from prison, telling the Guards to go “F” themselves. What “poor” Sam learns is that his faithful wife has found Jesus and quit her stripping job to lead a respectable god fearing life raising their daughter. And now she wants him to come to church. Needless to say, that pisses Sam off big time and launches him on a self-destructive raging crime spree of drugs, robbery, and violence. But he is brought to the end of himself and believe it or not, gives his life to Jesus, being baptized and getting a respectable job in construction. This ain’t your low key Tender Mercies.
One day, Sam hears about the church mission project of building churches in Uganda and he takes off to go see how he can help. What he discovers on his trip is an evil world more wicked than he even realized. Joseph Kony’s terrorist group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), crosses from Uganda into Sudan and burns down villages, kills adults, tortures those who speak out, and forces children to become soldiers in their terrorist group. The result is myriads of orphans without much help from anyone to protect them.
Well, as you can guess, this pisses off Sam, and he gets a vision from God one day to build a church on his property for street people rejected by “proper” churchgoers, as well as an orphanage in the Sudan to help the children. Once, his new orphanage is burnt to the ground, he starts over, but this time with a new spirit – or rather, an old spirit redeemed with a new purpose. He joins the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), a counterinsurgent militia that protects the oppressed children with lethal force. Thus the title Machine Gun Preacher. Sam clings to his God and his guns. And thus the tremendous moral tale that asks the questions worthy of the Good Book itself: “How far will you go to save helpless innocent human life?”; “How does God’s redemption apply in a violent world of evil run amok?”; “Is self defense morally justifiable in rescuing women and orphans?”
A Christian Movie?
I have to be honest, this movie contains in it what I usually criticize in a typical “Christian movie.” Big bad biker dude’s wife finds God, brings him to a corny red-bricked church and he accepts Jesus into his heart, “gets saved” and baptized, turns his life around, starts his own church, and helps the poor children, yada yada. Christian clichés and memes we are all too familiar with in the Christian world.
However, this movie is not a cliché Christian movie. It is a deeply moving honest portrayal of “muscular” Christian faith alive in the complex real world we live in that draws respect even from unbelievers. So why do I say that? What makes it different if it carries some of the very same elements of Christian movies?
Well, first off, let’s be honest that the most obvious major differences are good production values, good writing, good directing, and good acting, that is so absent from “Christian movies.” Now, I am not going to go on a Christian movie bashing binge. And I am not going to make digs at specifically named Christian movies (and you know who you are :-). As a matter of fact, I think in general, they are getting better in all these categories as the years press on. I have been a part of some mediocre movies as well, so I know how hard it is to make a good movie, period. But there are several things in the storytelling itself that I think make this film work where Christian movies approaching similar themes often do not. First, in its moral and spiritual honesty and second, in its portrayal of evil and redemption.
Moral Honesty
While the movie wrestles with the moral issue of how to rescue widows and orphans oppressed by murderers, it does not promote hero worship or give pat answers and it deals honestly with the moral ambiguity of violence as a means to an end that exists in the real world.
First off, the villains in the film are fairly represented. Though the bulk of the murdering done in Southern Sudan has been by Muslims against Christians, Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA, claims to be a Christian. Now, this would be a perfect opportunity for the typical Hollywood politically correct spin to ignore the Muslim violence and paint it as a picture of “Christian” terrorism. But the movie does not do this. It tells us about the Muslim violence and then communicates that Kony claims to be a Christian, but is clearly not a Christian, but a wolf in wolf’s clothing, using the Christian God’s name in vain. The issues are just more complicated than knee jerk moral equivalency will allow.
The movie also struggles honestly with the issue of using violence to defend the innocent against violence. Rather than creating another left/right divide of the issue or pacifism versus warmongering, this story promotes action, yet questions itself with an ambiguous thoughtfulness. When Sam sees the evil of the LRA cutting off the lips of protestors or the mine field death of a little boy, he realizes that this kind of evil cannot be stopped except by force and draws upon his past violence to overcome it. But his past nature is redeemed by channeling it to do good. Other than unborn babies, can there be any more helpless victims in need of protection than these? Can a pacifist in good conscience actually choose to allow orphan children to be murdered instead of stopping their murder with lethal force? As the Bible says, killing in self-defense is morally justifiable (Exodus 22:2-3) and rescuing widows and orphans from the wicked is commanded (Jeremiah 22:3; Psalm 82:4; Proverbs 24:11).
But neither does the movie degenerate into a bloodfest of vicarious catharsis of violent joy. It raises the issue, through a U.N. peace worker, that the use of violence even in service of a good cause can turn heroes into villains. She claims Kony too started out as Sam did, trying to do good with his violence but ended evil. But rather than capitulate to this simplistic moral reductionism, the movie goes deeper. Sam gets to the point where be becomes so filled with hate for his enemies that he gives up on God in the face of all the evil and is driven to suicidal thoughts. But he finds a way out back to God and draws a line of distinction between righteous and unrighteous violence based on the motive of hatred. One can achieve justice rather than vengeance by not allowing the hatred of the enemy to grip our own hearts. According to this movie, there is righteous violence in service of the good. In fact, Sam ends up rescuing that U.N. worker with his guns, providing delicious irony that reminds one of how American soldiers provide the freedom and protection to protestors to hate and accuse America of denying freedom.
Spiritual Honesty
And that brings me to the spiritual honesty. While Sam becomes a hero, the movie does not white wash him nor whitewash his faith. His faith and sensitive conscious create a complex moral tension in his life that is not completely solved by the end of the story. Sam becomes so focused on his cause of rescuing people on the other side of the earth that he neglects his own family given by God. Sure, he sells what he owns to save the children, but that means what he owns is taken from providing for his family. This is a common problem with “full time” charity and ministry workers. Christian salvation does not always result in a balanced life. Christians often continue on as a mixed bag of good and bad qualities that God uses in spite of our flaws. Kinda like the Bible. But all too often unlike the Christian movie genre.
When Sam cannot get donations from the selfish rich people around him and he sees that the kids are not being helped, he has a crisis of faith and gets angry with God to the point of cussing him out along with his family. Oh my goodness! A Christian who cusses when he gets angry? Heresy! The film portrays Sam repenting from his suicidal hatred and coming back to a justice orientation, but it does not show a spiritual resolution. Maybe this is just part of that uneasy ambiguity of the tensions in our own lives. The reality is that while Sam remains married, he remains a scarred and imperfect man with a bad attitude, who still screws up. It is a messy situation and no one gets away clean or undamaged. There is redemption, but it is no fairy tale happy talk prosperity salvation.
At the end of the film, we see a video of the real Sam Childers telling us he is not capable of clearly delineating the right and wrong of what he does. But he asks us the question, “If it was your child who was kidnapped, and I could bring them back to you, would it matter how I got them back?” Making it personal challenges the self-righteous who would sacrifice the lives of other’s children on the altar of convenient arm-chair philosophizing. These are real people’s children being kidnapped, raped, enslaved and murdered, not abstractions for an argument. Talk is not enough. Action is required. Evil can only be stopped with violent force. And violent force, even in service to righteousness, is not without its negative effects on us. But the evil will not listen to talk. So your only choices are: Allow innocent children to be kidnapped, raped and murdered or kill the evil perpetrators? Which will you choose?
Portrayal of Evil and Redemption
Straight up, this is a hard R-rated film. Unlike “Christian movies,” It is full of the F-word, has a crude sex scene and is very violent. In other words, many Christians will be offended by it. In my book, Hollywood Worldviews (Read the Preface free along with unused chapters of the book at the URL link) I have a chapter on sex and violence in the movies and the Bible where I explain that in a story, the power of the redemption is only equal to the power of the sin depicted. If you do not portray evil Biblically as the seductive yet destructive reality that it is, your message of redemption will not be truthful or believable.
While I do not condone all portrayals of sin in movies (some of it can be exploitative. Read my book :-), in this case, the depth of the depravity is essential to the potency of the redemption. The problem with some Christian movies is that when they portray real world evil with a filtered “protective” sugar coating like some 1970’s television bad guys, they degrade their redemption story to an unrealistic anachronism that doesn’t ring true to human nature. If the real world they portray is not real, how can the redemption be real? The reason why Sam’s Old time Religion salvation in a corny quirky Evangelical church is not off putting to unbelievers is because it is depicted as a polar opposite of Sam’s equally extreme pre-Christian lifestyle. We understand and accept that it takes extreme measures to save an extreme sinner.
Christians often have a hard time with the F-word in movies. They will sometimes accept violent shootings, stabbings, or riddling bullets (as long as they don’t show too much blood), but for some contradictory reason, they just think that the F-word is too harsh for their holy ears. Look, I’ll agree that sometimes it can become excessive, but I’m sorry, if I see a biker dude in a Christian movie saying “friggin” or “dang” or whatever other substitute cuss word for how they really talk, I do not believe the reality of the character and subsequently do not believe the storytellers understand human nature because they are afraid to face it like the Bible does. Their fear of accuracy is a reflection of a lack of faith, reminiscent of hagiographic biographies of saints. Just too good to be true. The book of Judges depicts far worse than Machine Gun Preacher ever does.
When Sam has quicky car sex with his wife in the car by the side of the road, we are saddened by the dehumanized crudity, and that is Biblical (Don’t worry, wives and girlfriends, they don’t show any skin). That is Biblical because it portrays exactly the kind of dehumanization that has destroyed Sam and destroyed his ability to find intimacy with his own loving wife. Every aspect of this man – love, sexuality, relationships, human concern — is spiritually damaged almost beyond repair. Why, that is almost as bad as the Bible’s detailed description of dehumanizing sexuality in Ezekiel 16 and 23 (Read my book for a whole lot more).
And of course, when we see a person whose lips have been cut off because they talked back to the terrorists, or when we see a child whose legs have been blown off by a mine, or a child forced to murder his own mother, we are repulsed because we cannot imagine such evil. But rather than being “sensitive” to family audiences or avoiding “excessive violence”, this movie does what is morally right: It shows the evil so our consciences will be convicted and we will act (I betya parents don’t let their children read Ezekiel 16 or 23 either). If we never saw the grotesque images of the skeletal myriads of Jewish victims of the Holocaust, we would not have the moral growth necessary to “never again” let it happen. If we do not see what is happening to the innocents in Sudan and around the world, we will remain ignorant and spiritually and morally immature, preferring political arguments in our safely removed lives to actual moral actions.
I will conclude this analysis with a translation of a famous Tony Campolo charge that struck my heart and never left me years ago:
Rebel terrorists have murdered over 400,000 Sudanese, and enslaved over 40,000 children and many Christians just don’t give a shit. And the most tragic fact of all is that many Christians who just read that statement were more offended by my use of the word “shit” than by the fact that 400,000 Sudanese have been killed and 40,000 enslaved by terrorists.
God, forgive us of this sin.
Jesus, thank you for Machine Gun Preacher.