How have I gone this far in my life and not seen these? Maybe a couple I KNEW about, but not sure if I've seen any of them. I haven't watched them all yet, either, because there are, like, 40 of them! Yay!
If you love sci-fi, enjoy!!! (Courtesy of IO9 and http://theparkbencher.blogspot.com/)
http://io9.com/5412722/40-unseen-moments-from-your-favorite-movies
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
A Quick Word on Terminator: Salvation
I've been trying to paste this in for a while, and it's not working. Thus, I will link to my facebook note, and hope anyone who wants to read this can read it there. I apologize. Not sure why the copy/paste was not working.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest¬e_id=190132775381#/notes/kristi-israel/a-quick-word-on-terminator-salvation/190132775381
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest¬e_id=190132775381#/notes/kristi-israel/a-quick-word-on-terminator-salvation/190132775381
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Random, but Excellent, Movie Suggestions
I was trying to think of a really great blog post topic, but I was at a complete loss. So, I decided to write a little about something I like, movies, and even more than that, sharing what I think are good movies with other people. Here is a short list of some of my favorites. It's certainly not a comprehensive list, and I'm choosing to leave off some of my favorites that I think most people probably know of already, like Star Wars. This is more of a "Hey, here are some great movies you may not know about" kind of list. Here goes...
Jesus of Nazareth- a long, but wonderful and reverent, adaptation of the greatest story ever told. Many people star in this one. Robert Powell plays Jesus. If memory serves he has a British accent, but to me that's better than American, and about as good as you can get unless they speak in the original language like in The Passion of the Christ. 1977- Franco Zeffirelli directs.
Big Fish- starring Ewan MacGregor, about a dying man whose life story seems too good to be true. His son seeks out the truth and finds some fascinating answers. Uplifting with great storytelling. 2003. Don't think there's too much to worry about here- maybe some language.
In the Bedroom- starring Sissy Spacek, Marisa Tomei, Tom Wilkinson. This is a drama about a married couple who lose their teenage son to violence (about an hour into the movie) and their struggle to deal with the aftermath. It is heavy and sad, but a very well-told story with amazing performances. I watch this when I'm in the mood for a good catharsis. 2001. Violence and adult themes.
A&E's Pride and Prejudice- for those of you participating in Melanie Dickerson's Jane Austen challenge, I highly recommend this faithful, five-hour adaptation of one of my favorite books. The Kiera Knightley version does not come close to this one. Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle star. 1995.
The Best Man- a young Italian woman, sometime around the turn of the century, is forced by her family to marry a man she doesn't love. His long-time friend arrives from America to be the best man, and she immediately falls in love with him instead. Sweet story. Subtitled. 1998.
Waiting for Guffman- a hillarious mockumentary by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy, in the tradition of Spinal Tap, about a community theatre troupe in Blaine, Missouri who wait anxiously for a Mr. Guffman from New York to come and see their show and make them all big stars. The cast is mostly the same as in his other works- Catherine O'Hara, Guest, Levy, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, and many others. 1997. Language warnings.
A Room with a View- based on the E.M. Forster novel and starring Helena Bonham-Carter, Julian Sands, and Maggie Smith- oh, and how can I forget????!!! Daniel Day-Lewis as the foppish Mr. Cecil Vyse!!! (which proves what an awesome actor he is, that Nathaniel from Last of the Mohicans could also play this part- unbelievable!!!) I'm getting myself so worked up by this entry, I think I'll go and watch it now! 1985. Great love story set in England and Italy around the turn of the century (the last one- not the millenium). Light-hearted and delightful. There is nudity- but it's not of the vulgar kind.
If you've seen any of these, let me know what you think. If you watch any based on my recommendations, I'd love to hear your opinion!
Jesus of Nazareth- a long, but wonderful and reverent, adaptation of the greatest story ever told. Many people star in this one. Robert Powell plays Jesus. If memory serves he has a British accent, but to me that's better than American, and about as good as you can get unless they speak in the original language like in The Passion of the Christ. 1977- Franco Zeffirelli directs.
Big Fish- starring Ewan MacGregor, about a dying man whose life story seems too good to be true. His son seeks out the truth and finds some fascinating answers. Uplifting with great storytelling. 2003. Don't think there's too much to worry about here- maybe some language.
In the Bedroom- starring Sissy Spacek, Marisa Tomei, Tom Wilkinson. This is a drama about a married couple who lose their teenage son to violence (about an hour into the movie) and their struggle to deal with the aftermath. It is heavy and sad, but a very well-told story with amazing performances. I watch this when I'm in the mood for a good catharsis. 2001. Violence and adult themes.
A&E's Pride and Prejudice- for those of you participating in Melanie Dickerson's Jane Austen challenge, I highly recommend this faithful, five-hour adaptation of one of my favorite books. The Kiera Knightley version does not come close to this one. Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle star. 1995.
The Best Man- a young Italian woman, sometime around the turn of the century, is forced by her family to marry a man she doesn't love. His long-time friend arrives from America to be the best man, and she immediately falls in love with him instead. Sweet story. Subtitled. 1998.
Waiting for Guffman- a hillarious mockumentary by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy, in the tradition of Spinal Tap, about a community theatre troupe in Blaine, Missouri who wait anxiously for a Mr. Guffman from New York to come and see their show and make them all big stars. The cast is mostly the same as in his other works- Catherine O'Hara, Guest, Levy, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, and many others. 1997. Language warnings.
A Room with a View- based on the E.M. Forster novel and starring Helena Bonham-Carter, Julian Sands, and Maggie Smith- oh, and how can I forget????!!! Daniel Day-Lewis as the foppish Mr. Cecil Vyse!!! (which proves what an awesome actor he is, that Nathaniel from Last of the Mohicans could also play this part- unbelievable!!!) I'm getting myself so worked up by this entry, I think I'll go and watch it now! 1985. Great love story set in England and Italy around the turn of the century (the last one- not the millenium). Light-hearted and delightful. There is nudity- but it's not of the vulgar kind.
If you've seen any of these, let me know what you think. If you watch any based on my recommendations, I'd love to hear your opinion!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Old Movies or New?
Now I know there are winners and losers in both categories, and the new stands on the shoulders of the old. But really, the worlds are so far apart in so many ways. This is a topic which could be an ongoing thing.
This weekend I saw Notorious at a screening with a group called "Art on Life" I've attended a couple of times this summer. This is a Hitchcock film, and I believe it was made in 1946. Hitchcock could also be his own blog category, but right now I would just love to hear your opinions about old films verses new films. Which are better and why?
Craft comes to mind when I think about older films. The old studio system was flawed in many ways, but they knew how to crank out a movie with factory-like precision, and when the studios recognized the great directors and let them have more say over the films they were creating, a truly artistically-crafted product was the end result.
Anyone seen Notorious? Ingrid Bergman, Carey Grant and Claude Raines are more subtle than many actors of the day. Looking at a film like this is always bizarre for me, because like someone at our meeting said, it's like watching Shakespeare. It takes a while before I can find the rhythm, but once I was there, I was hooked.
Hitchcock crafted his story, his dialogue, his shots, his MacGuffin, all with the skill of a master. At one point, at a scene change, a champagne bottle fades into a lamp shade, and the little decoration at the top of the lamp is in the shape of a key, something which plays a major part in the story.
Though movies like GI Joe and Transformerz certainly require a visual craft, is it the same? The recent remounting of Star Trek was an example, I believe, of a well-crafted movie all around, visually appealing, with a well-developed story which also managed to stay true to the original canon.
Just some thoughts- I hope to get into other comparisons and contrasts in follow-up posts. I would love to hear some opinions!
This weekend I saw Notorious at a screening with a group called "Art on Life" I've attended a couple of times this summer. This is a Hitchcock film, and I believe it was made in 1946. Hitchcock could also be his own blog category, but right now I would just love to hear your opinions about old films verses new films. Which are better and why?
Craft comes to mind when I think about older films. The old studio system was flawed in many ways, but they knew how to crank out a movie with factory-like precision, and when the studios recognized the great directors and let them have more say over the films they were creating, a truly artistically-crafted product was the end result.
Anyone seen Notorious? Ingrid Bergman, Carey Grant and Claude Raines are more subtle than many actors of the day. Looking at a film like this is always bizarre for me, because like someone at our meeting said, it's like watching Shakespeare. It takes a while before I can find the rhythm, but once I was there, I was hooked.
Hitchcock crafted his story, his dialogue, his shots, his MacGuffin, all with the skill of a master. At one point, at a scene change, a champagne bottle fades into a lamp shade, and the little decoration at the top of the lamp is in the shape of a key, something which plays a major part in the story.
Though movies like GI Joe and Transformerz certainly require a visual craft, is it the same? The recent remounting of Star Trek was an example, I believe, of a well-crafted movie all around, visually appealing, with a well-developed story which also managed to stay true to the original canon.
Just some thoughts- I hope to get into other comparisons and contrasts in follow-up posts. I would love to hear some opinions!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Benjamin Button Review, Part II
So, where did it go wrong? If you missed the first part of this review, you should know that I loved the first part of this movie- probably about a third of it, as it is a long film. But then The Curious Case of Benjamin Button took a turn, and I have been trying to put my finger on exactly why the last part did not work. The answer, I believe, is that there are several reasons!
First, the writing...Maybe the writer thought the concept itself was interesting enough to carry this short-story-turned-loooonnnngggg-screenplay, but it wasn't. Like anything, without a strong story, it suffers. Things do happen in Benjamin's life along the way, things which should and could be interesting, but for some reason they aren't. He had a lifelong deep love with a woman, played by Cate Blanchett, and I didn't care. He went to war and worked on a boat, and I didn't care. He had a child, and I didn't care.
One of my problems with the story is that the viewer is robbed of the pleasure of discovery. Why write a story about someone so extraordinary if no one, beyond his father and foster mother initially, ever seems to find it strange that he gets younger instead of older. I love discovery scenes. I was left sorely wanting.
A friend of mine said it was a regurgitated version of Forrest Gump, and I have to agree that there are similarities, mainly in tone. The two movies feel the same. Also, they are both about extraordinary boys who live interesting lives in spite of what others see as their handicaps. But BB's is not nearly as interesting, in my opinion, as Forrest's. This leads me to character development, which also goes to poor writing.
Story is important, but when we don't care about characters, who cares what happens to them? I think this was a major part of the problem. Looking at FG again in comparison, we can see strong character development in Forrest and Ginny from an early age. They BOTH face great obstacles. In fact, I would venture that Ginny faces more trouble than Forrest, many either of her own making or as a result of her abuse growing up. We care about both of these characters, and we feel what happens to them, both the good and the bad.
In BB, Cate B's character, Daisy, is one-dimensional. She is a beautiful dancer. She shows up every few years and eventually she and Benjamin do get together and then split up, and that's about it. We have no idea of who she is outside of the knowledge of her as a dancer and someone who likes Benjamin. Usually, I LOVE Cate Blanchett. She is one of my favorite actresses, but somehow, she could not make this one work.
Thus, we have our second problem...the acting. I mentioned in Part I of this review my opinion that Brad Pitt does excellently as his first incarnation of BB, when he is a really old, small man, with a little boy's mind. He is subdued, but you can see the twinkle of youth in his eye. It really was great. But I have a MAJOR CORRECTION to make here to the first blog- even though he looks a lot like Brad in the face, IT IS NOT HIM IN THE FIRST PART OF THE MOVIE. You may be thinking this should have been obvious since he was so small during this segment, but they made the hobbits in Lord of the Rings look much shorter than they were! The actor with the convincing twinkle was actually, according to www.imdb.com, Peter Donald Badalamenti II. Sorry for not doing this research sooner! I knew something wasn't right there!
When Brad took over the role, I believe he tried to show us his version of growing up, which was just to grow dull. He lost the twinkle of youth created by his predecessor, and with it went his personality. He shows very little emotion during his adulthood.
There was also no chemistry between Pitt and Blanchett. I have a suspicion that Angelina Jolie was hanging out on the set scaring the blazes out of them. This is something the director (third problem) should have caught in casting, but he also should have pulled better acting out of these guys. I mean, the last part of this movie was a perfect storm of bad choices, but better acting and chemistry between the principals could have saved it partly.
Good things? Make-up, atmosphere, the old people in the home (one of whom is always telling about his seven instances of being struck by lightning), and nice performances from Taraji P. Henson, who played Benjamin's adoptive mother, Jared Harris as Captain Mike, and Badalamenti.
Melanie, one of our faithful readers, commented on the last review, asking how could a story with this premise end well? My answer is that it can end as well as any story about a person's life from beginning to end, but it should have given us a reason to care about the stuff in between. I like to joke that the movie ends when he becomes an atom and then splits and explodes, but that footage ended up being cut. Actually, it ends by randomly tying in Hurricane Katrina. We see the flood waters rising at the train station, and we are shown the basement, where the old clock still resides. Not, I imagine, the original intent of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
First, the writing...Maybe the writer thought the concept itself was interesting enough to carry this short-story-turned-loooonnnngggg-screenplay, but it wasn't. Like anything, without a strong story, it suffers. Things do happen in Benjamin's life along the way, things which should and could be interesting, but for some reason they aren't. He had a lifelong deep love with a woman, played by Cate Blanchett, and I didn't care. He went to war and worked on a boat, and I didn't care. He had a child, and I didn't care.
One of my problems with the story is that the viewer is robbed of the pleasure of discovery. Why write a story about someone so extraordinary if no one, beyond his father and foster mother initially, ever seems to find it strange that he gets younger instead of older. I love discovery scenes. I was left sorely wanting.
A friend of mine said it was a regurgitated version of Forrest Gump, and I have to agree that there are similarities, mainly in tone. The two movies feel the same. Also, they are both about extraordinary boys who live interesting lives in spite of what others see as their handicaps. But BB's is not nearly as interesting, in my opinion, as Forrest's. This leads me to character development, which also goes to poor writing.
Story is important, but when we don't care about characters, who cares what happens to them? I think this was a major part of the problem. Looking at FG again in comparison, we can see strong character development in Forrest and Ginny from an early age. They BOTH face great obstacles. In fact, I would venture that Ginny faces more trouble than Forrest, many either of her own making or as a result of her abuse growing up. We care about both of these characters, and we feel what happens to them, both the good and the bad.
In BB, Cate B's character, Daisy, is one-dimensional. She is a beautiful dancer. She shows up every few years and eventually she and Benjamin do get together and then split up, and that's about it. We have no idea of who she is outside of the knowledge of her as a dancer and someone who likes Benjamin. Usually, I LOVE Cate Blanchett. She is one of my favorite actresses, but somehow, she could not make this one work.
Thus, we have our second problem...the acting. I mentioned in Part I of this review my opinion that Brad Pitt does excellently as his first incarnation of BB, when he is a really old, small man, with a little boy's mind. He is subdued, but you can see the twinkle of youth in his eye. It really was great. But I have a MAJOR CORRECTION to make here to the first blog- even though he looks a lot like Brad in the face, IT IS NOT HIM IN THE FIRST PART OF THE MOVIE. You may be thinking this should have been obvious since he was so small during this segment, but they made the hobbits in Lord of the Rings look much shorter than they were! The actor with the convincing twinkle was actually, according to www.imdb.com, Peter Donald Badalamenti II. Sorry for not doing this research sooner! I knew something wasn't right there!
When Brad took over the role, I believe he tried to show us his version of growing up, which was just to grow dull. He lost the twinkle of youth created by his predecessor, and with it went his personality. He shows very little emotion during his adulthood.
There was also no chemistry between Pitt and Blanchett. I have a suspicion that Angelina Jolie was hanging out on the set scaring the blazes out of them. This is something the director (third problem) should have caught in casting, but he also should have pulled better acting out of these guys. I mean, the last part of this movie was a perfect storm of bad choices, but better acting and chemistry between the principals could have saved it partly.
Good things? Make-up, atmosphere, the old people in the home (one of whom is always telling about his seven instances of being struck by lightning), and nice performances from Taraji P. Henson, who played Benjamin's adoptive mother, Jared Harris as Captain Mike, and Badalamenti.
Melanie, one of our faithful readers, commented on the last review, asking how could a story with this premise end well? My answer is that it can end as well as any story about a person's life from beginning to end, but it should have given us a reason to care about the stuff in between. I like to joke that the movie ends when he becomes an atom and then splits and explodes, but that footage ended up being cut. Actually, it ends by randomly tying in Hurricane Katrina. We see the flood waters rising at the train station, and we are shown the basement, where the old clock still resides. Not, I imagine, the original intent of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
What's This Business with Benjamin Button?
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I finally got to see this movie a couple nights ago, and I felt it deserved some reflection and commentary. As most of you probably know by now, the story is about a baby born as a tiny old man, and as he grows, he gets younger. It is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
The story starts with a lot of promise. In fact, I loved the first third of the movie. It was long, a little over 2 1/2 hours, I believe. There is this fascinating opening sequence about a clockmaker during WWI who loses his son in the war. He is supposed to make a clock for the new trainstation in the town, and even Teddy Roosevelt comes to see the unveiling. When the clock is revealed, it is shown that it runs backward. He says this is because he wishes that all of the boys who died in the war could be safe again. And then he rows out to sea and is never seen again.
The clockmaker is never mentioned again, but I believe we are supposed to think the clock has something to do with the birth of Benjamin. It is a really sweet story at the beginning. Benjamin's mother dies in childbirth and his father is so horrified by him that he takes him away, planning to throw him in the lake (Lake Ponchetrain, I guess- it's set in New Orleans). He finally leaves him on the steps of an old age home, and a black woman who works there takes him in and raises him as her own child.
The first third of the movie works on every level for me. The story is great and the acting is on point. It is a beautiful thing to see the acceptance of Benjamin into this world of people who are in their last stages of life. They all think Benjamin is going to die soon, but instead he keeps getting stronger. Also, the acceptance of him by his adopted mother is lovely. She believes he should have life because he is one of God's children. Even Brad Pitt's acting, which I have never thought was particularly strong, especially in dramas, is really good during this part of the movie. Here, BB has the mind of a child in an old man's body, and Brad Pitt really seems to capture the childlike innocence and mischief of a ten year old boy.
After that, though, the movie takes a turn for the worse. Stay tuned for the rest of this review...
I finally got to see this movie a couple nights ago, and I felt it deserved some reflection and commentary. As most of you probably know by now, the story is about a baby born as a tiny old man, and as he grows, he gets younger. It is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
The story starts with a lot of promise. In fact, I loved the first third of the movie. It was long, a little over 2 1/2 hours, I believe. There is this fascinating opening sequence about a clockmaker during WWI who loses his son in the war. He is supposed to make a clock for the new trainstation in the town, and even Teddy Roosevelt comes to see the unveiling. When the clock is revealed, it is shown that it runs backward. He says this is because he wishes that all of the boys who died in the war could be safe again. And then he rows out to sea and is never seen again.
The clockmaker is never mentioned again, but I believe we are supposed to think the clock has something to do with the birth of Benjamin. It is a really sweet story at the beginning. Benjamin's mother dies in childbirth and his father is so horrified by him that he takes him away, planning to throw him in the lake (Lake Ponchetrain, I guess- it's set in New Orleans). He finally leaves him on the steps of an old age home, and a black woman who works there takes him in and raises him as her own child.
The first third of the movie works on every level for me. The story is great and the acting is on point. It is a beautiful thing to see the acceptance of Benjamin into this world of people who are in their last stages of life. They all think Benjamin is going to die soon, but instead he keeps getting stronger. Also, the acceptance of him by his adopted mother is lovely. She believes he should have life because he is one of God's children. Even Brad Pitt's acting, which I have never thought was particularly strong, especially in dramas, is really good during this part of the movie. Here, BB has the mind of a child in an old man's body, and Brad Pitt really seems to capture the childlike innocence and mischief of a ten year old boy.
After that, though, the movie takes a turn for the worse. Stay tuned for the rest of this review...
Thursday, July 2, 2009
My "Revolutionary Road", Part II
I promised you a follow-up to Part I, and I don't want to split this one up, so please hang in there with me. Here goes...
I feel like this is difficult to write, partly because I am still smack-dab in the middle of it, still going through whatever this trial is. I would probably not be writing this, but I feel that God wants me to share some of the discoveries I have been making through His Spirit. I personally believe that God is preparing me spiritually for whatever it is I am supposed to do out here in LA, and is taking my faith to a new level. Right now, though, it just feels like I don't have much faith. Oh, I believe in Him, I love Him, but I have been wrestling with Him. I feel like I don't trust enough, like I don't love enough, like I have too many desires and distractions, and am having trouble putting Him first.
You know, I never understood until recently that whole story about Jacob wrestling with God. I always thought that sounded just wrong of Jacob. Who was he to wrestle with God? Why would God enter into such a thing with a mere man? I never liked the story much. But now I understand, I think.
Did you know this life is not about our happiness? I think I must have. Suddenly, however, seemingly out of the blue, it's a concept I'm having trouble with. Take "true love", for example. It's a concept we're all raised with, and I have come to think lately that subconsciously it has been a notion which has ruled many of my dreams and hopes over the years. That idea of one day finding that happiness which we all seek, which will be fulfilled in the perfect mate.
That's what Kate Winslet's character must have hoped for in the movie "Revolutionary Road", or she would not have married Leo DiCaprio's Frank Wheeler. But does it ever live up to our expectations? I hear once in a while about a marriage which is still full of passion many years later, or ones that get better over time, but still these are not the relationships we read about in the books. I once heard a line on one of my favorite TV shows of all time, "Northern Exposure" that I could not forget. RuthAnne, the store owner, is proposed to by a traveling salesman, and she declines, telling him that he is a romantic, and romantics are always disappointed with marriage. That stuck with me, and scared me a little.
The "Twilight" books are actually what acted as catalyst to this recent worry of mine. I say worry because I should be trusting it to God, but I mostly just worry obsessively over it. They portray such an amazing love story, and there are some really nice elements to the story. However, is it healthy to get drawn into such a romantic story? Does the dream for such a relationship become an idol when we make it so important? I understand all of the things I think I should- that God is who we are ultimately longing for when we long for that, that our happily ever after will be in Heaven with Him, that I need Him and nothing else.
But that does not keep me from wanting other things, or thinking sometimes that I am kind of sad that there is no marriage in Heaven like there is on earth. Of course, I don't think God says there will be no romantic love, but Jesus says there is no marriage (forgive the paraphrase). So I try to trust more, and only end up falling short in my thoughts. Thankfully, a friend reminded me yesterday in a wonderful piece of writing, that the thoughts are not always in sync with what the Spirit knows to be true, and that our inner selves are one with Christ no matter what our thoughts are doing. Right about now, though, I sure wish my thoughts would straighten up.
It all comes down to that whole thing that it is not about me. I started reading "The Purpose Driven Life", which my mother gave my years ago and I had not read yet. I was feeling unhappy and homesick and confused here in LA, even though God has provided over and beyond what I could have hoped for already. I was thinking I would be happier somewhere else, even though I have wanted to be in a position to pursue my dreams for so long. I was confused and needed direction. The first line of the first chapter says, "It's not about you."
Wow- really? I have become so self-involved over the last few years that I must have forgotten what I already knew. I went through so much with my divorce and tried to be so faithful to my marriage and do what was right, I think I came out with this idea that the rest of my life would be about me being happy. And that is not it at all! I believe God wants us to be happy, but His purpose for us is first, and ultimately, we are here to serve His purpose and Kingdom. Some of His beloved, faithful, highly-used servants and prophets suffered horrible earthly ends. Wasn't Isaiah sawed in half? The problem is when you are self-involved and have long-held notions and dreams about what you want that you think will make you happy, it is really tough to let go of those.
So there you go. I am struggling daily to surrender these dreams and hopes, even if that is ultimately what He wants for me. That is one reason I was so fascinated by "Revolutionary Road", because that is what most of us just don't get. We expect to be happy because that is what we were designed for- life with God. But we don't live in the world we were designed for. My reward is in Heaven, not here. And it is really hard to accept this and I constantly fail. I am a romantic and can't help but hope for these things. I can't help myself at all. I just hope that eventually, I will have such a strong love for Him and trust in Him that the rest just follows. I thought I did, but it's amazing what the Spirit will expose that we don't even have a clue is lurking underneath.
Recently my roommate and I were talking about the Bible, which is pretty cool considering she told me in clear terms before I moved here that she is not religious and does not like to talk about religion. Somehow we got on the subject of Abraham, and she wanted to know why God would make him wait all that time for what was promised to him. I think I started to tell her about learning to trust Him, which is true, I believe. But then it occurred to me. Maybe God wanted Abraham to realize that what he wanted so bad, to have a son, just was not as important as he thought it was. Not as important as serving His purpose and loving Him. It turns out, for Abraham, the two went hand in hand, but they may not always. Even Jesus prayed to have His cup taken from Him, but God's purpose was more important to Him than anything, so we can all be thankful for that fact!
I know some of you out there are romance writers, and please don't think I'm dissing on romance. I am a romantic dreamer of the most extreme kind, I think, which is one of the reasons this is a hard lesson to learn. But it's also a lesson that will hopefully help me to store up my treasures in Heaven, as Jesus commanded, and help me keep perspective out here in this place where what is really important is perhaps harder to see than it is anywhere else on earth. If I can ever come out on the other side of this trial, that is. Maybe you can send some prayers my way if you are reading this. I also may post my friend's article about the inner and outer consciousness, and oneness with Christ. It's great! Thanks for your patience with the long post! And one more thing- I am really thankful now that God is willing to wrestle with us and doesn't just quit on us!
I feel like this is difficult to write, partly because I am still smack-dab in the middle of it, still going through whatever this trial is. I would probably not be writing this, but I feel that God wants me to share some of the discoveries I have been making through His Spirit. I personally believe that God is preparing me spiritually for whatever it is I am supposed to do out here in LA, and is taking my faith to a new level. Right now, though, it just feels like I don't have much faith. Oh, I believe in Him, I love Him, but I have been wrestling with Him. I feel like I don't trust enough, like I don't love enough, like I have too many desires and distractions, and am having trouble putting Him first.
You know, I never understood until recently that whole story about Jacob wrestling with God. I always thought that sounded just wrong of Jacob. Who was he to wrestle with God? Why would God enter into such a thing with a mere man? I never liked the story much. But now I understand, I think.
Did you know this life is not about our happiness? I think I must have. Suddenly, however, seemingly out of the blue, it's a concept I'm having trouble with. Take "true love", for example. It's a concept we're all raised with, and I have come to think lately that subconsciously it has been a notion which has ruled many of my dreams and hopes over the years. That idea of one day finding that happiness which we all seek, which will be fulfilled in the perfect mate.
That's what Kate Winslet's character must have hoped for in the movie "Revolutionary Road", or she would not have married Leo DiCaprio's Frank Wheeler. But does it ever live up to our expectations? I hear once in a while about a marriage which is still full of passion many years later, or ones that get better over time, but still these are not the relationships we read about in the books. I once heard a line on one of my favorite TV shows of all time, "Northern Exposure" that I could not forget. RuthAnne, the store owner, is proposed to by a traveling salesman, and she declines, telling him that he is a romantic, and romantics are always disappointed with marriage. That stuck with me, and scared me a little.
The "Twilight" books are actually what acted as catalyst to this recent worry of mine. I say worry because I should be trusting it to God, but I mostly just worry obsessively over it. They portray such an amazing love story, and there are some really nice elements to the story. However, is it healthy to get drawn into such a romantic story? Does the dream for such a relationship become an idol when we make it so important? I understand all of the things I think I should- that God is who we are ultimately longing for when we long for that, that our happily ever after will be in Heaven with Him, that I need Him and nothing else.
But that does not keep me from wanting other things, or thinking sometimes that I am kind of sad that there is no marriage in Heaven like there is on earth. Of course, I don't think God says there will be no romantic love, but Jesus says there is no marriage (forgive the paraphrase). So I try to trust more, and only end up falling short in my thoughts. Thankfully, a friend reminded me yesterday in a wonderful piece of writing, that the thoughts are not always in sync with what the Spirit knows to be true, and that our inner selves are one with Christ no matter what our thoughts are doing. Right about now, though, I sure wish my thoughts would straighten up.
It all comes down to that whole thing that it is not about me. I started reading "The Purpose Driven Life", which my mother gave my years ago and I had not read yet. I was feeling unhappy and homesick and confused here in LA, even though God has provided over and beyond what I could have hoped for already. I was thinking I would be happier somewhere else, even though I have wanted to be in a position to pursue my dreams for so long. I was confused and needed direction. The first line of the first chapter says, "It's not about you."
Wow- really? I have become so self-involved over the last few years that I must have forgotten what I already knew. I went through so much with my divorce and tried to be so faithful to my marriage and do what was right, I think I came out with this idea that the rest of my life would be about me being happy. And that is not it at all! I believe God wants us to be happy, but His purpose for us is first, and ultimately, we are here to serve His purpose and Kingdom. Some of His beloved, faithful, highly-used servants and prophets suffered horrible earthly ends. Wasn't Isaiah sawed in half? The problem is when you are self-involved and have long-held notions and dreams about what you want that you think will make you happy, it is really tough to let go of those.
So there you go. I am struggling daily to surrender these dreams and hopes, even if that is ultimately what He wants for me. That is one reason I was so fascinated by "Revolutionary Road", because that is what most of us just don't get. We expect to be happy because that is what we were designed for- life with God. But we don't live in the world we were designed for. My reward is in Heaven, not here. And it is really hard to accept this and I constantly fail. I am a romantic and can't help but hope for these things. I can't help myself at all. I just hope that eventually, I will have such a strong love for Him and trust in Him that the rest just follows. I thought I did, but it's amazing what the Spirit will expose that we don't even have a clue is lurking underneath.
Recently my roommate and I were talking about the Bible, which is pretty cool considering she told me in clear terms before I moved here that she is not religious and does not like to talk about religion. Somehow we got on the subject of Abraham, and she wanted to know why God would make him wait all that time for what was promised to him. I think I started to tell her about learning to trust Him, which is true, I believe. But then it occurred to me. Maybe God wanted Abraham to realize that what he wanted so bad, to have a son, just was not as important as he thought it was. Not as important as serving His purpose and loving Him. It turns out, for Abraham, the two went hand in hand, but they may not always. Even Jesus prayed to have His cup taken from Him, but God's purpose was more important to Him than anything, so we can all be thankful for that fact!
I know some of you out there are romance writers, and please don't think I'm dissing on romance. I am a romantic dreamer of the most extreme kind, I think, which is one of the reasons this is a hard lesson to learn. But it's also a lesson that will hopefully help me to store up my treasures in Heaven, as Jesus commanded, and help me keep perspective out here in this place where what is really important is perhaps harder to see than it is anywhere else on earth. If I can ever come out on the other side of this trial, that is. Maybe you can send some prayers my way if you are reading this. I also may post my friend's article about the inner and outer consciousness, and oneness with Christ. It's great! Thanks for your patience with the long post! And one more thing- I am really thankful now that God is willing to wrestle with us and doesn't just quit on us!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Kristi's Revolutionary Road: A Response
First, I am doing this blog post because I’m afraid you missed Kristi’s entry on the movie Revolutionary Road, and how it pertains to some of her own struggles. I don’t think the email update went out to subscribers, and it’s too good a post to miss.
Second, I started writing a comment on her article and realized it was turning into a post of my own. So I’m putting it here instead.
It’s funny. I know almost nothing about the movie Revolutionary Road, but this is the second time I’ve read about it in the last couple of days. The other time, it was only mentioned briefly, in an article bemoaning the fact that people don’t want to go see realistic “adult” dramas these days, but instead seem to want escapism in the form of fantasy or comedy. This article mentioned Revolutionary Road as one of the supposedly high quality dramas that no one wants to see.
Well, duh. I know Christian fiction is sometimes criticized for glossing over the rough stuff of reality. I’m one of the people who has made that criticism. But I think we need balance in our stories—books, movies, whatever. We shouldn’t be afraid to admit how tough life is, but we should offer some hope. Not pat, easy answers that ring false, but hope.
I think everyone knows how tough life can be. Do we particularly need literature to tell us that?
What we don’t know, sometimes, is that there is hope when things seem hopeless. Kristi asked what we would say to folks like the couple in Revolutionary Road. Well, obviously, one of those pat, easy answers would be that they need God. I haven’t seen the movie, but it sounds as if these people are hopelessly mired in earthly things, in their own petty ambitions and concerns.
Ted Dekker has a great book called The Slumber of Christianity, which talks about this very thing. That Westerners, including Christians sadly, have lost the ability to imagine Heaven and so are concentrating on finding fulfillment in the here and now. And human beings are wired for the eternal, so that’s never going to work.
I’m starting to ramble on, but this is Kristi’s subject, so I’ll let her pick this thread back up in her next post.
Second, I started writing a comment on her article and realized it was turning into a post of my own. So I’m putting it here instead.
It’s funny. I know almost nothing about the movie Revolutionary Road, but this is the second time I’ve read about it in the last couple of days. The other time, it was only mentioned briefly, in an article bemoaning the fact that people don’t want to go see realistic “adult” dramas these days, but instead seem to want escapism in the form of fantasy or comedy. This article mentioned Revolutionary Road as one of the supposedly high quality dramas that no one wants to see.
Well, duh. I know Christian fiction is sometimes criticized for glossing over the rough stuff of reality. I’m one of the people who has made that criticism. But I think we need balance in our stories—books, movies, whatever. We shouldn’t be afraid to admit how tough life is, but we should offer some hope. Not pat, easy answers that ring false, but hope.
I think everyone knows how tough life can be. Do we particularly need literature to tell us that?
What we don’t know, sometimes, is that there is hope when things seem hopeless. Kristi asked what we would say to folks like the couple in Revolutionary Road. Well, obviously, one of those pat, easy answers would be that they need God. I haven’t seen the movie, but it sounds as if these people are hopelessly mired in earthly things, in their own petty ambitions and concerns.
Ted Dekker has a great book called The Slumber of Christianity, which talks about this very thing. That Westerners, including Christians sadly, have lost the ability to imagine Heaven and so are concentrating on finding fulfillment in the here and now. And human beings are wired for the eternal, so that’s never going to work.
I’m starting to ramble on, but this is Kristi’s subject, so I’ll let her pick this thread back up in her next post.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
My "Revolutionary Road"
This is part movie review, part attempt to share just a small tip of the iceberg of what God has been doing in my life lately. That part, in particular, will probably be spread out over several posts. I started to write about it recently and had to stop, because I was having a difficult time explaining. But I'll try, because it really is awesome, and it just shows how God truly "works for the good of those who love him, who are called according to his purpose." (from Romans 8:28) Hopefully you can follow my efforts...
First- the review, or perhaps it's more of a synopsis and how it bares on my own life. Therefore, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW! "Revolutionary Road" came out recently on dvd, and it was the first pairing of Kate Winslet and Leo (I call him Leo) DiCaprio since they starred in "Titanic" together. The reason I was drawn to the film is how similar the themes sounded to themes I've experienced in my own life. It is about the Wheelers, a married couple in the 50's who move to the suburbs and are basically destroyed by the emptiness they come to associate with their mundane, typical lifestyle. As I watched previews for this movie, I strongly empathized with the idea of finding yourself suddenly living a life separate from the one you had envisioned. At one point, April, played by Winslet, says, "I saw a whole other future. I can't stop seeing it."
April is an aspiring actress when she meets her husband, Frank. Next thing you know, they are married and have two kids. They have moved to the suburbs to a place on Revolutionary Road, hence the name. They moved because that's what people do when they have kids, right? You can't raise kids in the city, right? They always thought of themselves as a special couple, who would do something big- something DIFFERENT- with their lives, and they have both become miserable in the life they have chosen. Frank soon starts an affair to try to fill the void.
Eventually, April gets it into her head that the solution to all their problems is for them to move with their children to Paris. This is where Frank said he had been the most alive, when he had been there before, and he always wanted to go back. April says she will work over there and he can take time to discover what he wants to do with his life- what will make him happy. Kate Winslet, as usual, delivers a stellar performance, as her desperation to escape the mundane is always just barely contained, keeping you dreading the moment when the plan will surely fall apart, not knowing what she might do when it does.
And, of course, it does. She discovers she is pregnant, and sees her unborn baby as an impediment to getting to what she thinks will really make her happy- moving to Paris. Meanwhile, Frank has been promoted and offered a lot more money, and his dedication to the move is already being tested. When he discovers his wife's condition and her desire to abort the baby, and sees her attitude of motherhood in general being a mistake for her, which apparently he had somehow missed all along, he is horrified and tells her the trip is off.
The rest of the movie is a devastating series of events which show the result of Frank's continuous deliberate self-delusion, and April's final acceptance of the fact that she is in a life she neither wants, nor can leave. She does leave, though, through the unholy act of killing her baby and herself in the process. I personally wanted to see them get to Paris with all their kids and live there for a while, only to find themselves in basically the same state of spiritual and emotional bankruptcy they had endured in the States. But, alas, the writer went in a different direction. It gets to the same point, though.
One of the interesting aspects of this film is that there seem to be no characters who find the answer to filling the "emptiness" and "hopelessness" which pervade their lives. One character- one of their neighbors who recently spent time in an asylum- is the only one besides the Wheelers who actually admits to the harsh reality of reality, but he can offer no solution. The rest simply find less drastic, but no more effective ways to deal with these feelings, which they cannot afford to admit to themselves.
An older couple on the block, in the final scene of the movie, sits together in their house speaking of the Wheelers. The wife, played by Kathy Bates, drones on about how they were never suitable to take that house to begin with, and so on and so on. Meanwhile, the husband looks at her and slowly turns down the volume on his hearing aid, until there is silence. And that ends "Revolutionary Road."
Uplifting, huh? Why, you might be asking yourself, would I want to engage my time in such a heavy, depressing movie? I'll get into that more in my follow-up post. But let me leave you for now with this question: What do you think is the solution for the real-life Wheelers out there? Because in one way or another, whether we live in Paris or Alaska or Los Angeles, whether we are incredibly poor or really rich, whether we cure a disease or homeschool our kids, we are all the Wheelers in one way or another, or at least we all start out that way.
To be continued...
First- the review, or perhaps it's more of a synopsis and how it bares on my own life. Therefore, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW! "Revolutionary Road" came out recently on dvd, and it was the first pairing of Kate Winslet and Leo (I call him Leo) DiCaprio since they starred in "Titanic" together. The reason I was drawn to the film is how similar the themes sounded to themes I've experienced in my own life. It is about the Wheelers, a married couple in the 50's who move to the suburbs and are basically destroyed by the emptiness they come to associate with their mundane, typical lifestyle. As I watched previews for this movie, I strongly empathized with the idea of finding yourself suddenly living a life separate from the one you had envisioned. At one point, April, played by Winslet, says, "I saw a whole other future. I can't stop seeing it."
April is an aspiring actress when she meets her husband, Frank. Next thing you know, they are married and have two kids. They have moved to the suburbs to a place on Revolutionary Road, hence the name. They moved because that's what people do when they have kids, right? You can't raise kids in the city, right? They always thought of themselves as a special couple, who would do something big- something DIFFERENT- with their lives, and they have both become miserable in the life they have chosen. Frank soon starts an affair to try to fill the void.
Eventually, April gets it into her head that the solution to all their problems is for them to move with their children to Paris. This is where Frank said he had been the most alive, when he had been there before, and he always wanted to go back. April says she will work over there and he can take time to discover what he wants to do with his life- what will make him happy. Kate Winslet, as usual, delivers a stellar performance, as her desperation to escape the mundane is always just barely contained, keeping you dreading the moment when the plan will surely fall apart, not knowing what she might do when it does.
And, of course, it does. She discovers she is pregnant, and sees her unborn baby as an impediment to getting to what she thinks will really make her happy- moving to Paris. Meanwhile, Frank has been promoted and offered a lot more money, and his dedication to the move is already being tested. When he discovers his wife's condition and her desire to abort the baby, and sees her attitude of motherhood in general being a mistake for her, which apparently he had somehow missed all along, he is horrified and tells her the trip is off.
The rest of the movie is a devastating series of events which show the result of Frank's continuous deliberate self-delusion, and April's final acceptance of the fact that she is in a life she neither wants, nor can leave. She does leave, though, through the unholy act of killing her baby and herself in the process. I personally wanted to see them get to Paris with all their kids and live there for a while, only to find themselves in basically the same state of spiritual and emotional bankruptcy they had endured in the States. But, alas, the writer went in a different direction. It gets to the same point, though.
One of the interesting aspects of this film is that there seem to be no characters who find the answer to filling the "emptiness" and "hopelessness" which pervade their lives. One character- one of their neighbors who recently spent time in an asylum- is the only one besides the Wheelers who actually admits to the harsh reality of reality, but he can offer no solution. The rest simply find less drastic, but no more effective ways to deal with these feelings, which they cannot afford to admit to themselves.
An older couple on the block, in the final scene of the movie, sits together in their house speaking of the Wheelers. The wife, played by Kathy Bates, drones on about how they were never suitable to take that house to begin with, and so on and so on. Meanwhile, the husband looks at her and slowly turns down the volume on his hearing aid, until there is silence. And that ends "Revolutionary Road."
Uplifting, huh? Why, you might be asking yourself, would I want to engage my time in such a heavy, depressing movie? I'll get into that more in my follow-up post. But let me leave you for now with this question: What do you think is the solution for the real-life Wheelers out there? Because in one way or another, whether we live in Paris or Alaska or Los Angeles, whether we are incredibly poor or really rich, whether we cure a disease or homeschool our kids, we are all the Wheelers in one way or another, or at least we all start out that way.
To be continued...
Monday, May 11, 2009
To Boldly Go Where I've Gone Many Times Before
I'm obviously slipping. I didn't even realize there was a new Star Trek movie coming out until a few weeks ago. Back in the geeky days of my youth, I would have been one of the first to hear of such an earth-shaking development. I would have been planning to go to the premiere with my geeky friends, in t-shirts with clever sayings like, "Reality is just a crutch for people who don't get science fiction."
Even after finding out about this movie, I wasn't excited until sometime last week. Then something changed and I started getting all worked up about it. Maybe it was partly the change in the weather--the first really sticky, summery days we've had. Maybe it was a whiff of honeysuckle, or the end of the spring term at the college where I work. What does any of that have to do with wanting to see Star Trek, you ask?
Suddenly I was young again, with final exams completed and the lazy summer days stretching out before me. Hot afternoons spent in dark, cool movie theaters, transported to galaxies far, far away. Going home and writing letters to my friends (actual letters on paper, using ink pens and stamps and the mailbox. Talk about another world!) speculating on the next chapter in some ongoing space drama or other.
So suddenly, I wanted to be there on opening weekend of the new Star Trek, not just to see the movie, but to drink in the excitement. To be transported back in time. (Which turned out to be a very fitting metaphor, as you'll know if you've seen the movie!)
And isn't that what good books and movies are about? They speak to our lives at a particular time. They bring us into relationships with other fans. They spark our imaginations and take us out of ourselves. And they're bound so inextricably with the "real" parts of our lives that the connection is almost impossible to break. Hence the whiff of honeysuckle, the sticky-hot weather--and the sudden desire for an epic space movie.
And maybe the book or the movie doesn't even have to be particularly good. I thought the new Star Trek was well-written, funny and exciting, fresh and new yet faithful to the old--just extremely well done. But that's not always the most important thing. The familiar characters, the connection to our lives, some silly little thing that resonates with a part of our personality--sometimes that's more important than high artistic accomplishment.
I've had this idea before. (I will admit, for example, that the Pirates of the Caribbean movies have some of the most convoluted and hard-to-follow scripts in the world, but they resonate with me in a way that most better-written movies do not.) Then I heard someone else express the same thought, in a sort of unexpected venue: the Rush Limbaugh show. Last Friday, Rush had a guest host named Mark Davis, who is about my age. (Translation: Baby Boomer.) (Translation of the translation: old.)
Mr. Davis also talked about being excited over the movie, largely out of a sense of nostalgia. He also mentioned his fascination with the "franchise" idea of Star Trek--how many incarnations and series and movies and spinoffs there have been. He admitted that one of the series (The Next Generation, I think) was superior in every technical way to the original. Better writing, better acting, better special effects. And yet, it would always be Captain Kirk and Bones and Spock that held his heart and fired his imagination, because they're eternally connected with his youth, and with the joy of discovery.
I wonder if Mr. Davis has a picture of himself in a Star Trek uniform. I do. Have a picture of myself, I mean--not of Mr. Davis. Should I share it with you? Hmmm...it would take a LOT of comments telling me you're dying to see the picture for me to stoop that low. We'll have to see.
What about you out there? Even if you're not science fiction or Star Trek fans, are there books or movies that you realize aren't exactly great literature--and yet they stir something in you that "higher art" never could?
Even after finding out about this movie, I wasn't excited until sometime last week. Then something changed and I started getting all worked up about it. Maybe it was partly the change in the weather--the first really sticky, summery days we've had. Maybe it was a whiff of honeysuckle, or the end of the spring term at the college where I work. What does any of that have to do with wanting to see Star Trek, you ask?
Suddenly I was young again, with final exams completed and the lazy summer days stretching out before me. Hot afternoons spent in dark, cool movie theaters, transported to galaxies far, far away. Going home and writing letters to my friends (actual letters on paper, using ink pens and stamps and the mailbox. Talk about another world!) speculating on the next chapter in some ongoing space drama or other.
So suddenly, I wanted to be there on opening weekend of the new Star Trek, not just to see the movie, but to drink in the excitement. To be transported back in time. (Which turned out to be a very fitting metaphor, as you'll know if you've seen the movie!)
And isn't that what good books and movies are about? They speak to our lives at a particular time. They bring us into relationships with other fans. They spark our imaginations and take us out of ourselves. And they're bound so inextricably with the "real" parts of our lives that the connection is almost impossible to break. Hence the whiff of honeysuckle, the sticky-hot weather--and the sudden desire for an epic space movie.
And maybe the book or the movie doesn't even have to be particularly good. I thought the new Star Trek was well-written, funny and exciting, fresh and new yet faithful to the old--just extremely well done. But that's not always the most important thing. The familiar characters, the connection to our lives, some silly little thing that resonates with a part of our personality--sometimes that's more important than high artistic accomplishment.
I've had this idea before. (I will admit, for example, that the Pirates of the Caribbean movies have some of the most convoluted and hard-to-follow scripts in the world, but they resonate with me in a way that most better-written movies do not.) Then I heard someone else express the same thought, in a sort of unexpected venue: the Rush Limbaugh show. Last Friday, Rush had a guest host named Mark Davis, who is about my age. (Translation: Baby Boomer.) (Translation of the translation: old.)
Mr. Davis also talked about being excited over the movie, largely out of a sense of nostalgia. He also mentioned his fascination with the "franchise" idea of Star Trek--how many incarnations and series and movies and spinoffs there have been. He admitted that one of the series (The Next Generation, I think) was superior in every technical way to the original. Better writing, better acting, better special effects. And yet, it would always be Captain Kirk and Bones and Spock that held his heart and fired his imagination, because they're eternally connected with his youth, and with the joy of discovery.
I wonder if Mr. Davis has a picture of himself in a Star Trek uniform. I do. Have a picture of myself, I mean--not of Mr. Davis. Should I share it with you? Hmmm...it would take a LOT of comments telling me you're dying to see the picture for me to stoop that low. We'll have to see.
What about you out there? Even if you're not science fiction or Star Trek fans, are there books or movies that you realize aren't exactly great literature--and yet they stir something in you that "higher art" never could?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
