Review of THE DARK KNIGHT
by Diana M. Taibi
starring Christian Bale and Heath Ledger
directed by Christopher Nolan
Rated PG-13

The Dark Knight is as an absolutely stunning movie, a true action-drama that transcends the comic book genre. The film is so densely packed with moral, emotional, and social dilemmas that the viewer is left ruminating for days or longer. Yet these heavy questions never detract from the momentum and enjoyment of the film. As I untangle the theme presented, I find interesting commentaries on the nature of faith and self-sacrifice.

The plot has been described in a previous review on this blog, so I will start by commending the excellent performances in the film that make contemplation of the difficult themes unavoidable for the audience. Heath Ledger’s Joker is menacing and mocking, unflinchingly violent. He refused to offer any laughable “monologuing”; indeed, any monologuing is intentionally manipulative. This is a stand-out performance of an irredeemably evil man and a worthy archenemy. However, as noted in the previous review by Pastor James Harleman, the emotional “heavy lifting” was truly done by Gary Oldman as Police Lieutenant (future Commissioner) Gordon and Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent. Eckhart’s performance, in my opinion, rivaled Heath Ledger’s role as a stand-out performance. Eckhart’s performance as an ethical “white knight”, an unmasked hero (the flip side of the coin from Batman) makes both Bruce Wayne and the audience root for Dent. However, we know from Batman lore that Harvey Dent’s downfall is inevitable, which makes it all the more heartbreaking to watch.

The film presents two messages on faith, one hopeless, and one hopeful. First, the film presents faith as necessary for inspiring people to be moral and responsible. For faith to be transforming, it must be in the image of someone “good”, but the foundational truth behind the image (i.e., whether or not the person actually is good) is immaterial. A relevant statement was made in an episode of Firefly that dealt similarly with faith: “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a’statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. Ain’t about you,… ‘Bout what they need.” The position is that people need to believe in something, but the veracity of that something is moot. In this sense, the film posits that people do not need a real God and redeemer, but rather an idol, simply an image to inspire. This type of faith truly is Marx’s opiate of the masses, a band-aid happiness to get the people through until they rise up from their own inner strength and create a better world.

There is much wrong with this perspective from the Christian point of view. First, and most important, our object of faith is true. The Lord Jesus came to earth, lived a sinless life, and was sacrificed for the sins of the world. He is not an idol or a Dark Knight; he is Lord of all. We are not people whose ultimate salvation will come from being inspired by an idol to pull up our own bootstraps. Our hope is not in an inspirational image, but in a Savior who will, himself, come to deliver us.

The other point made in The Dark Knight, however, was more heartening, though challenging (I have tried not to include spoilers, but general plot directions may be implied in this section). In two crucial moments of the film, it is not the ostensibly good people who do what is right, but rather the tarnished sinners who do what is right, regardless of the consequence to both life and reputation. In one sequence, a group of criminals and a group of ordinary people must decide if they will kill the other group that they might live. Without revealing the outcome, many of the good people show a clear lack of moral strength needed to decide that killing another that one might live is simply not an acceptable action. The lack of action by these individuals is from cowardice rather than from an active decision to do what is right. That is, when put to the test, the morality of these modern Pharisees (the “good”) fails them because their morality is built on rules that have not prepared them for moral strength in situations that their rules have not explained. They have not actually learned goodness in their hearts (compare to Matthew 15:7-9) and thus are unprepared for self-sacrifice. However, many of the criminals actively decide that it is wrong to murder others that one might live. Those who have nothing to lose, who admit that they are not good people, are able to free themselves from fear and make the right choice.

The Dark Knight rejects being rule-bound as simplistic and morally inadequate. Through the Joker, the film rejects anarchy and chaos as madness. What, then, are we left with? We are left with moral maturity, the internal compass to do what is best when no choice appears clearly “right” or “good”. This dilemma is played out in the tension between the Dent and Batman characters as they presents two different pictures of self-sacrifice. Throughout the film, Dent is the opposite type of hero from Batman- publicly visible and emotionally engaging as well as morally assured. His fall is, metaphorically, from a great height. This “moral” character is ruined, driven to madness and revenge, by failed self-sacrifice. On the other hand, Batman, the tarnished “sinner” is the moral victor. He is redeemed in his righteousness, even though he must sacrifice everything: reputation, friends, mentors, and love. In this role, he is very much a savior like Jesus who not only submitted to death, but sacrificed his reputation to be killed among criminals (Luke 23:32, 39-43). Christ who was “a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3) and was himself forsaken by God the Father in his greatest suffering (Matthew 27:46). Thus, on the point of redemptive self-sacrifice, I found the film presented a difficult, but hopeful, challenge to the Christian viewer. Are we prepared to “count everything as loss” (Philippians 3:8) to do what is right and follow the example of Christ?

A Review by Elliot Strong
Starring: Hunter S. Thompson, Johnny Depp
Written/Directed by: Alex Gibney
Limited release in theaters, DVD release date TBD.
Rated R

Trailer:

Who was Hunter S. Thompson? His alter-persona of Raoul Duke, the crazed and drugged-up journalist of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas fame, is probably the first image that comes to mind for most people. But for Alex Gibney, the Academy Award winning documentary writer/producer/director (Best Documentary 2007, Taxi to the Dark Side), to take on a new project that explores the legacy of Thompson, there must have been a whole lot more to him.

Gibney’s Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson chooses to explore the less salacious parts of Thompson’s personal life and instead focuses on his political and social commentary as a member of the ‘New Journalism’ movement. Of course, the two sectors often crossed over and one cannot explore the life of Thompson without discussing the “drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity” that he described as integral elements of his career and ultimately tragic life. (Hence the film’s R rating; this is not a documentary about ants, buildings, or beavers.)

The film, narrated by his friend Johnny Depp, primarily expounds on the era of the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. It focuses on the drama of the clashes at the Chicago Democratic Convention in ’68 and as Thompson followed the McGovern campaign in ‘72, which developed into the book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. By compiling and connecting archival material and new interviews with figures as interesting and disparate as George McGovern, Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, and Tom Wolfe, it makes for a fascinating and sometimes insightful documentary of the repercussions of that epoch.

It only stumbles when a lengthy and specious comparison is made between the re-election of Nixon in 1972 and the current condition of the United States at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever one’s particular political proclivities may be, it could be agreed upon that the election of 1972 and the War on Terror are independent events in history separated by a few presidents of a varying political spectrum.

But Gonzo’s strengths show when it goes to great lengths to demonstrate how, as a commentator and writer, Thompson was ruthless, cynical and often outrageously funny. He rejected the idea of objective journalism and embraced his opinions and inserted himself into the stories he reported on. His hatred for Richard Nixon was likely unparalleled and he was not afraid to expound upon that wrath in his body of writing. And unlike many authors, Thompson became as comfortable vocalizing his sentiments and opinions publicly as he was putting them to paper. The pressure grew to live up to the persona he portrayed in his writings.

The man behind the persona that Thompson came to embody is explored through incredibly personal interviews with friends such as Wolfe, Jimmy Buffett, illustrator Ralph Steadman, and family members such as his son Juan Thompson, first wife Sondi Wright, and widow Anita. Even his suicide in February 2005 is discussed on-screen by his son who was in the adjoining room when Thompson took his own life. His death is not celebrated but rather lamented. Without giving the whole conclusion away, the film does a remarkable job portraying a balanced picture of a polarizing American figure that is often revered as a cult hero today.

On a certain level, Thompson lived his life consistent to his own ethos and code of conduct to the very end. From that perspective his death, while saddening, should have been expected at any moment. He lived his life with little hope in anything other than the idea that sooner or later the world would start to make sense. It was probably incredibly frustrating for him to feel increasingly powerless against what he saw as an increasingly crazed and senseless world. The only logical escape in his mind was suicide, as tragic and sad as that was for his friends and family around him. That is the bittersweet nature of Thompson’s life; while it is invigorating to be exposed to his excitement and energy at his peak, it is disconcerting and sad to realize that his hope didn’t lie anywhere but in himself.

A Review of The Apartment
by Zach Malm
Directed by Billy Wilder
Starring Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, and Fred MacMurray

A writer-director before that hyphen became commonplace, Billy Wilder is responsible for some of the best and most well-loved American films in history, including Some Like it Hot, Double Indemnity, Sabrina, and my personal favorite, 1960’s The Apartment, starring Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine.

Although it won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1960 (the last completely black and white film to win), and sits at #80 on the American Film Institute’s list of the top 100 American films of all-time, I get the impression that it’s not nearly as well-known as the vast majority of the other films on the list.

The plot concerns C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), a young number cruncher at a big insurance company. A dedicated career man, he has lately taken to lending the use of his apartment to managers and executives in need of a safe place for extramarital trysts. Although it can make his life a bit hectic, he takes it all in stride, confident that the venture will help him rise in the ranks quickly, which will then aid him in gaining the affection of Fran Kubelik (MacLaine), a sunny elevator operator he’s had his eye on for a while.

When the CEO, Jeff Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) finds out what he has going on, Baxter gets called into a meeting. After a stern monologue from Sheldrake, it eventually surfaces that Sheldrake does not want to fire Baxter, but rather promote him, and have broad access to the apartment. Baxter agrees, unaware that Sheldrake’s mistress is in fact Miss Kubelik.

When Baxter discovers this, the movie shifts. Sheldrake confides in Baxter that not only does he really not care for Miss Kubelik very much, but that he has a long history of affairs, and in each case he strings the woman along, making her think he intends to leave his family for her, never really intending to do such a thing. Then on Christmas Eve, without knowing that his secretary alerted Fran to his philandering history, Sheldrake gives her a story about how it’ll be a while before he can leave his family for her. She starts to see through his lies, and, tearing up, states matter-of-factly, “You think I would’ve learned by now. When you’re in love with a married man, you shouldn’t wear mascara.” He gives her $100 as a Christmas present, and leaves. Baxter comes home to find her passed out on the bed, having taken a bottle of sleeping pills.

When I first saw The Apartment, I couldn’t believe that a movie like this would have been made in America at that time. Europe had already seen groundbreaking films like The 400 Blows and Breathless, but Hollywood was still working under the old Production Code, which made frank discussion of adult issues a difficult matter. The Graduate was still 7 years away, and although The Apartment is generally considered a comedy, Wilder doesn’t pull any punches when dealing with the big real-world issues of suicide and infidelity. This is no slapstick. If anything, the melancholic but still comedic tone reminds me of Harold and Maude or Rushmore.

For the first half, Baxter is content to facilitate the sin of others, just as long as he can benefit from it. When he finds Fran passed out in his apartment, he has to face the harsh reality of sin. The Bible tells us that sin leads to death (Romans 6:23), but it also tells us that God gives grace, and sometimes that comes in the form of a difficult wake-up call. Baxter doesn’t want Fran to be mistreated because he has a crush on her, but he’s been willing to let scores of other girls be mistreated by the married men who are using them. When the doctor next door helps him save Fran, he tells Baxter, “Live now, pay later – diner’s club! You need to grow up, Baxter, be a mensch. Do you know what that is? A mensch, a human being!”

That’s good advice, but not good enough. Yes, Baxter needs to “man up”, but as Christians, we know that it’s being human that gets us in trouble in the first place. As humans, we are incapable of the perfection Christ calls us to in Matthew 5:48. “I’m so fouled up,” Fran tells Baxter. She’s also halfway there. We’re all fouled up, but Jesus isn’t, he loves us regardless, and by his grace we are forgiven. As we see in Baxter’s transformation, it’s never too late to grow up, take our sin seriously, and turn from it. The important thing is who you turn to. Don’t settle for being a mensch.

A review of THE COUNTERFEITORS
by Aaron Webb
starring
directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky
Rated R

The Counterfeiters is an Austrian film which tells the story of Salomon Sorowitsch, a master counterfeiter who is forced to work for the Nazi’s in their attempt to destabilize the currencies of their wartime enemies. Directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky (All the Queen’s Men) the film takes the viewer through wartime intrigue to explore themes of morality and survival.

Trailer:

Recently, Germany and Austria have turned out some striking period films, the most notable being The Downfall, an intense illustration of the final 12 days of Hitler’s Life; and The Lives of Others, a story set against the background of Secret Police monitoring in East Berlin during the 1980’s. The Lives of Others won the 2007 Oscar for best foreign film, and The Counterfeiters followed in its footsteps for 2008 - deservedly so.

The production is carried out well with realistic and historically accurate sets and costumes. The story is bookended with events occurring in Monte Carlo after the war is over and the majority of the movie is told as one long flashback. The cinematography during the Monte Carlo scenes is stable while the camera during the flashback (and most of the movie) follows a point of view style that makes the viewer feel like they are seeing the memory first hand. Director Ruzowitzky commented that they intentionally did not film a single scene without Sorowitsch in it. Many of the scenes open with the camera looking over the shoulder of Sorowitsch causing the audience to start each scene from his perspective. When the film opens in Monte Carlo, the colors are vibrant. Once the flashback starts and Sorowitsch is arrested, the colors become very muted and washed out. The transition at the beginning of the film between the vibrancy of Monte Carlo and the flatness of the flashback after his arrest is done so seamlessly that I didn’t realize it until the action returns to colorful Monte Carlo at the end and I was left wondering if the rest of the film had been in black and white. A running theme through the scenes in the concentration camps is that they live in a world without color. This is true literally on film, and in the story as all the art that the prisoners do is without pigment which they do not have access to except when counterfeiting.

The acting is superb with Karl Markovics as the enigmatic Salomon Sorowitsch, August Diehl as idealistic Adolf Burger and Devid Striesow as Strumbannführer Friedrich Herzog. The direction by Ruzowitzky really builds the chemistry between Markovics and Diehl. These actors do a fantastic job of balancing the line of respect and enmity between Sorowitsch and Berger.

The Counterfeiters is a fictionalization based on the true story of Operation Bernhard, the Nazi attempt during the Second World War to print enough counterfeit British Pound notes to destabilize the economy of the United Kingdom. It is things like Operation Bernhard that make the Nazi’s great villains for the likes of Indiana Jones and Rick Blaine to fight. This is because they really would try anything if they thought it would give them an edge: Find the Ark of the Covenant (Raiders of the Lost Ark), Open a gate to hell (Hellboy) and print £134,610,810 in perfect British currency (true story).

The absurdity of the idea is tempered by the real life success. The notes from Operation Bernhard were so good that they were called “the most dangerous ever seen” and to this day remain some of the most perfect counterfeits ever produced. Operation Bernhard was enough to create paranoia in the Bank of England which pulled all notes larger than £5 from circulation for 20 years. But rather than trying to flood the economy of the United Kingdom the Germans decided it would be more effective to use the currency to fund intelligence operations and pay for strategic imports. They started trying to counterfeit the American dollar, but were unable to get it out before the end of the war. The film is loosely based on real-life counterfeiters Salomon Smolianoff and Adolf Burger, a printer whose memoirs were used to write the screenplay.

The plot centers around one man, Salomon ‘Sally’ Sorowitsch, who is arrested in 1936 Berlin for counterfeiting. He is sent to a labor camp and later, as the Nazi regime takes control, a concentration camp. Several years pass and through his skills in art he receives protection and some comforts from the guards who assign him assorted projects. This gets him noticed and he is transferred to Operation Bernhard, run by Herzog, the man who first arrested him in 1936. It is in Operation Bernhard where we see the real drama open up. Sorowitsch faces several situations where his actions and reactions seem contradictory. The counterfeiters live in relative luxury compared to the rest of the concentration camp inmates, even thought the Nazis are constantly threatening to kill them if they do not produce successful counterfeit notes in time. Many of the workers fervently work to meet the deadlines in order to preserve their own lives. An idealist, Berger tries to sabotage the operation because he would rather die than help fund the Nazi war effort. Sorowitsch diligently works on the Nazi counterfeiting project, but his reasons are much more ambiguous. In the opening sequence of the film, Sorowitsch appears to live the high life with lots of money and women, but the film reveals him as an empty and wounded man that emigrated from Russia to Germany after losing his wife and children. His outlook on life, at least his own, is more pragmatist than optimist, and it does not feel like he’s only trying to stay alive. Some accuse Sorowitsch of professional pride that drives his desire to accomplish his lifetime goal of counterfeiting the American dollar regardless of the moral cost. Sorowitsch may not care about his own life, he may be filled with pride, he may fight doggedly with the more outwardly selfless Berger, but at the same time the film does not show Sorowitsch to be a man without hope or let us cast him off as a monster. Although Sorowitsch and Berger are constantly fighting amongst each other, Sorowitsch also repeatedly defends Berger against the others and refused to expose his sabotage efforts. Sorowitsch’s compassion for a young boy that is a member of the counterfeiting team further obfuscates where exactly Sorowitsch’s heart lies and what is truly motivating him.

Ruzowitzky did not want the morality to be cut and dry. In an interview, Ruzowitzky says that typical concentration camp inmates did not have the luxury of making moral decisions. In addition to beds with sheets and a ping pong table, the counterfeiters are given the privilege of having moral decision making. Everybody wants to do what is right, but the concentration camp system was built so that it was very difficult to do the right thing in such a place. What we (and Ruzowitzky) don’t realize is that the situation of the counterfeiters portrayed by Ruzowitzky in the concentration camp is a microcosm of the real world. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we are not in the same situation as Sorowitsch every second of every day. We are all caught in a struggle between idealism and pragmatism. In the film Sorowitsch states, “Nobody’s prepared to die for a principle,” to which Berger replies, “That’s why the Nazi system works!” This echoes Proverbs 28:12: When the righteous triumph there is great glory, but when the wicked rise, people hide themselves. The proverb shows how this internal struggle plays out. When it seems like evil is winning people become ever more pragmatic, looking out for themselves and their own. Pragmatism becomes so overwhelming that the ideal of righteousness is lost and what is right becomes relative. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). Ruzowitzky shows us this in the way that he sets up the characters. With each character he tries to create a situation where the viewer says “That is exactly what I would have done,” accentuating the false sense of relativism between right and wrong. Our longing for an ideal comes from the deeper desire for there to be a truth. Thankfully, we can rest in the words of God; I the Lord speak the truth; I declare what is right (Isaiah 45:19).

by Caitlyn Stark
directed by Andrew Stanton
Rated G

Hundreds of years in the future, life on earth has ceased to exist as we know it. Humanity’s wastefulness has forced them off the planet entirely, leaving the clean-up in the capable hands of Wall-E’s, robots made by the Buy n Large Mega corporation for the specific purpose of compacting Earth’s garbage in cubes for easy disposal.

Curious Wall-E Video

As the movie opens, there is only one Wall-E left still cleaning up, creating skyscrapers of garbage higher than the skyline of New York City. And this particular Wall-E has developed a strong and adorable sense of curiosity. Every night Wall-E brings a lunch box of “discoveries” home from work; things like rubber duckies, bobble-head dogs, rubix cubes and light blubs. Another thing he finds is a copy of the musical Hello Dolly. There is a song in that movie between the romantic leads, and watching it, Wall-E realizes that he is missing something – someone to love, a hand to hold.

EVE arrives on the scene and Wall-E finds that someone. But she is quickly taken back after finishing her mission, to the Axiom, a ship designed as a cruise-liner for displaced humans during the clean-up, and Wall-E goes along for the ride. Originally intended for short 5 year cruises, the humans on the Axiom have been there for a little longer than that – 700 years longer. And it is a depressing sight – humans don’t walk anymore, they ride around in hover-chairs, they don’t even know about recreational activities such as swimming pools and jogging tracks around the ship. And they have no personal contact with each other; they only communicate using the digital screens directly in front of their faces. Wall-E’s arrival on the ship causes things, with both humans and robots alike, to change, little bit by little bit.

Now, I’m a sucker for a good Disney/Pixar movie and was excited to see this one at first, until I saw more commercials for it and saw the potential for another “we’re killing the earth” movie. My thoughts immediately were, “Oh great, let’s make a movie that shocks the kids into becoming recycling nuts who can’t leave Seattle for fear of running into a place where they don’t recycle everything. God forbid.” But I was happily proven wrong.

Wall-E is a great movie about an adorably curious and naïve robot and his desire to find love. The idea that “It is not good that the man should be alone” from Genesis 2:18 applies to Wall-E as well as any human concept can apply to an animated robot (but then again, Disney and Pixar have done it with bugs, toys, cars and fish in the past, so I suppose it’s not much of a stretch). Wall-E wants someone to relate to, to be in community with, and to love – he reflects our God-given desire for the same. We’re made in God’s image, and He exists in perfect community in the Trinity, so we desire that.

The state of the uninhabitable Earth in the movie didn’t bother me as much as the state of humanity did. A bunch of disconnected, lazy, “happy” humans with everything they’ll ever need to survive who have only ever been connected technologically to each other. There were hundreds of people on the ship, and not one of them had ever had a real, face to face conversation with another.

So, I want to challenge all of you to fight against that potential. Go right now, grab your family, and your friends, and go enjoy each other’s company. Why not go see a movie? Say, Wall-E perhaps?

Trailer

Pan’s Labyrinth
Audio Review by James Harleman (contains spoilers)

“Is there real immortality and real magic? I believe there is… I believe they are a spiritual reality that is as tangible and as real as the material world… Only those that KNOW where to look - only those that have the right GAZE - can see it.”
– Guillermo Del Toro

The film has a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it received a 98% rating at Metacritic, making it Metacritic’s fourth highest rated movie of all time. At the Cannes Film Festival release, it received a standing ovation. Clearly, it made an impression. After viewing the film at a Cinemagogue event with a large audience, I unpacked the underlying themes in Guillermo’s beautiful story, using many of the artists own words.

To Director Guillermo Del Toro, the film represents “Violence and fantasy – how the “real” material world scoffs at the girl’s interest in the fantasy world.” There are differing ideas about the film’s religious influences. Del Toro himself has said that he considers Pan’s Labyrinth “a truly profane film, a layman’s riff on Catholic dogma”, but that his friend Alejandro González Iñárritu described it as “a truly Catholic film”. Del Toro’s explanation is “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”.

What does this story intimate about “reality”, our belief in what lies beyond the material world? Does Ofelia invent a fantasy world to escape the horrible realities of life that surround her in 1944 after the Spanish Civil War? OR… are her eyes open to a world that is deeper and wider, beyond her understanding but ultimately offering, hope, escape, and immortality? More importantly, what does this say about us? Is our assumption of the material world as “reality” the true fantasy?

Del Toro: “That moment of putting away our toys and giving up our childhood is a profound, melancholy moment.”

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” – Jesus (Luke ch.18)

You can listen right here by clicking the play button above.
You can also listen to the audio in another browser by clicking on the link below, or right click and “save as” to download the mp3. For those options, click here.

A review of THE BIG LEBOWSKI
by Elliot Strong
starring Jeff Bridges and John Goodman
directed by Joel Coen
Rated R

His words are quoted, books have been written about him, gatherings are arranged in his honor, and the image of his long hair and flowing robes are legendary. Welcome to the modern cult of The Big Lebowski.

For those uninitiated, Jeff Bridges does not play the ‘Big Lebowski’ in the titular 1998 movie. While the ‘Big’ Lebowski is a millionaire living in his Pasadena mansion, Bridges is Jeffrey Lebowski, aka ‘The Dude’—or ‘El Duderino’ if you’re not into the whole brevity thing—an aging (and unemployed) hippie who lives a modest life in his Venice, California, bungalow. It seems as if this was the role that Bridges was born to play. He even used much of his own wardrobe to outfit himself for the movie.

Released to a tepid critical response and quickly becoming a borderline box-office failure (or “bomb” as some like to call it), The Big Lebowski went on to achieve what I would consider to be the definition of a cult classic. Knowledge of Joel and Ethan Coen’s strange tribute to Los Angeles has been spread by word of mouth, DVD sales, and home-viewing parties. Like all cult classics, it has taken on a life of its own. The film has gone on to spawn books, festivals held in various cities, innumerable online tribute videos, and even a religion.

Set in the Los Angeles area in 1991, The Dude roams the Earth with his two friends—Walter (John Goodman), a brash Vietnam war veteran, and Donny (Steve Buscemi), a meek and often befuddled man—in search of justice, the perfect White Russian cocktail and diversionary games of bowling (sadly, we never actually get to see The Dude bowl). What is this movie about? Well, it’s hard to explain, though I’ve seen this film more times than any other movie in my life. While it seems like almost everyone in the known universe has seen this once-obscure movie, I still run into people that have not seen it and therefore deserves some explanation.

Basically, a rug that “really ties the room together” is stolen from The Dude’s bungalow, precipitating a massive undertaking to recover or replace it. This involves, among other things, confronting the wealthy “Big” Lebowski, becoming involved in an elaborate hostage-negotiation scheme, and German Nihilists. It’s an absurd premise, which results in quite possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen.

Broadly tracking the plotline of The Big Sleep, The Dude and his colorful cast of compatriots work to unravel the misfortunes that have been forced upon him by a simple misunderstanding due to his last name of Lebowski. It turns out his rug was stolen as payment due to some henchmen confusing one Lebowski for another, no matter how different their lives may be. The story unravels from there, pushing The Dude and company towards further encounters with a variety of antagonists (predominantly embodied by Peter Stormare’s excellent Nihilist #1) and the occasional potential ally.

The Coens based some of the characters and incidents in the film on people and anecdotes they had encountered while in Los Angeles. The Dude and Walter are both composite characters; The Dude draws heavily off producer Jeff Dowd and Walter from writer and notorious Hollywood conservative John Milius. The movie is more of a study of the idiosyncratic characters introduced rather than driven by its plot. Walter and Donny serve as The Dude’s de facto family in the absence of any other apparent family structure in the world he inhabits. Even within their threesome, relationships are strained, but outside of the pack no one is trustworthy.

So what is it about this movie that attracts its faithful adherents, and what makes film aficionados remember it fondly rather than just as another commercial flop from a decade ago? Bear in mind that the general viewing population of the United States of America in 1998 hated this movie, hence its economic failure at the box office as compared against such masterpieces of American cinema such as Armageddon and Doctor Dolittle. Rated R for its creative and prolific use of the popular four-letter curse word beginning in “F” (281 times, to be precise), drug use, nudity, and occasional violence involving amphibious rodents, the movie was both doomed to popular obscurity and destined for cult greatness.

If a viewer can get past the seemingly nonsensical premise and plot, one discovers a very funny movie that explores human relationships, friendships, and interactions such as only the exceptionally rare film really can. Part of the film’s appeal definitely comes from the ethos of The Dude himself, which offers a compelling escapist contrast to the inhabitants of the highly competitive atmosphere of the late ‘90s through today. Not only does The Dude not have to carry a steady job, he is also fortunate enough to have two bowling buddies who are willing to fight and die for him. That is true friendship. We all yearn for friends as loyal as Walter and Donny, as eccentric as they may end up being.

The Dude’s ethos of shirking cultural norms, i.e., a steady job, family, and sobriety, continue to appeal in this day and age of global uncertainty, instant communication, and increasing expectations of productivity and profitability. The fantasy of living the slacker lifestyle, of dropping out of the mainstream of society, of embodying all the ideologies that The Dude symbolizes, becomes very attractive. As Sam Elliott’s character of The Stranger (acting as the narrator of the film) says, “The Dude abides.”

For many, The Dude abides as a symbol of a functional savior of Slackerdom. “If only I could be that free, so unencumbered by material concerns,” says the cubicle dwelling drone, or middle manager, or executive, then I would be happy. This is as much of a functional escape, fantasy, or savior from the mundane as materialism provides. We all wish to have the completeness that the Dude has found in an absence of material possessions but in the companionship of close friends.

A review of THE DARK KNIGHT
by James Harleman
starring Christian Bale and Heath Ledger
directed by Christopher Nolan
Rated PG-13

“This is not a dance…”

Actor Liam Neeson spoke these words to a weary Bruce Wayne in the first act of Batman Begins. Rather than simply criticizing the balletic fight moves of a man who would become Batman, the statement seemed to speak more deeply about the film itself, which took a deviation from the choreographed, “beautiful” battles of recent superhero and action fare, steering the movie in the direction of fierce scraps with a heavy script. This was not Iron Man. Batman Began BOLDY, and the world took note of it’s brooding, philosophical edge (audio review of Batman Begins appears below).

Still, by comparison , 2008’s summer smash The Dark Knight makes even Batman Begins look like a whimsical two-step.

When asked, my first response to what I thought of the film was “I feel like I got kicked in the head and stomach for two and a half hours”. Other keywords began to stir in my brain: lumbering, brutal, tiring, fearsome, depressing. Even agonizing. Most days, readers will think most of these words were intended to pepper a negative review. However, for a film wrestling with mankind’s lack of moral compass, the exhilarating anarchy of The Joker, and the heavy and seemingly unbearable weight of leadership, this movie - like it’s titular character - is exactly what it needs to be.

The story begins with a clown-masked bank robbery, unveiling the arch-nemesis Batman will be tangling with throughout the flick (played by the late Heath Ledger). However, The Dark Knight is not about the Joker, or Batman, but truly about Gotham City and its denizens. While the first movie dealt idealistically with whether or not Gotham should be saved, this installment is where the rubber Bat-Pod meets the road. Bruce Wayne’s lifelong friend and potential paramour Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is paired - in business and pleasure - with new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). The photogenic yet genuine idealistic seeks to root out corruption inside the police department as well as removing the mob factions left in the city, who are beginning to band together. Even Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) sees Harvey’s white knight crusade pointing to a possible end for his own dark nights, carrot-dangling the possibility for a normal life.

(more…)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
review by Caitlyn Stark
Rated PG

How many times have we not been able to wait on the perfect timing of the One who loves us? Cinemagogue reviewer Aaron Webb had another perspective on Prince Caspian, but family film reviewer Caitlyn Stark provides her own thoughts:

Prince Caspian is set one year after the Pevensie children stumble upon the land of Narnia in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but it’s 1300 years later in Narnian time. In World War 2 England, the children are all coping with living in in the modern world in different ways: Lucy (Georgie Henley) is ever hopeful to return to Narnia; Edmond (Skander Keynes) still believes, yet is comfortable living back home; Susan (Anna Popplewell) is beginning to doubt, trying to move forward in England by pushing Narnia out of her head; but Peter (William Moseley) is having the hardest time, struggling to be a teenager boy again after being High King of Narnia for years.

Meanwhile, Caspian (Ben Barnes) is a young prince of the Telmarines whose uncle is coveting his throne. After his aunt gives birth to a son, Caspian flees for his life and ends up in the forest where he is taken in by Narnians, thought by the Telmarines to be extinct. The Narnians see how Caspian can save them from the oppression they have been living under for generations, and pledge their swords and their lives to fight for Caspian’s crown. Inadvertently, Caspian is able to find a way to pull the Pevensie children back into Narnia. When the Pevensies realize that they have returned to Narnia, they meet Trumpkin, a dwarf who watched Caspian blow the horn, they set out to meet up with Caspian. On the way, they discover that Narnia is a much different place then when they left: the Narnians are in hiding, animals who could once talk have forgotten how, and the trees who used to dance, have retreated into themselves, now standing still. The children soon make it to Caspian and they all prepare to fight the Telmarines for the freedom of Narnia.

(more…)

Audio Review of JUNO
by Pastor James Harleman

“I need to know that it’s possible that two people can stay happy together forever…”

Jason Reitman, the brilliant Director that gave us Thank You for Smoking, shot Juno in just 31 days. It was the highest-grossing film of all five Best Picture Oscar nominees (2008). Writer Diablo Cody won for the Award for Best Original Screenplay.

I know that, as a Christian, I’m expected to talk about the movie’s controversial handling of whether or not “all babies like to get borned…” but let’s be honest people, the baby is a macguffin; the real issues that this film gives birth to ultimately address finding one’s identity, and the seemingly hopeless nature of love.

“I’m just like losing my faith with humanity. I just wonder if two people can stay together for good.”

Faced with an unplanned pregnancy, an offbeat young woman makes an unusual decision regarding her unborn child. While the movie focuses on the women, one real issue seems to be “what’s wrong with our men”? The men in the film don’t act, and at best REact. I unpacked this and other facets of the story at a local film event… (includes spoilers, watch film first!)

Listen right here by clicking the play button above.

You can also listen to the audio in another browser by clicking on the link below, or right click and “save as” to download the mp3. For those options, click here.