Some of My Favorites: 3:10 to Yuma (1957 Version)

Review of one of my Favorites: 3:10 to Yuma

THE SKINNY
Story (from IMDb): Broke small-time rancher Dan Evans is hired by the stagecoach line to put big-time captured outlaw leader Ben Wade on the 3:10 train to Yuma but Wade’s gang tries to free him.

Age Appropriateness: (Not Rated) Pre-teen (11-12) and up (the tension and drama might not be felt by younger children- it might seem slow and boring to them).
MY TAKE: (Spoilers for “3:10 to Yuma” below)
While in seminary, I worked at a movie theater. And while there the 2007 remake of “3:10 to Yuma,” starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, came out. I thought the movie was okay but learned that it was actually a remake of a 1957 version. Blockbuster was still a thing so I went out and got a copy of the original. And I remember begin transfixed by the original. Sure the remake was flashier, there were more gunfights, more action, and more backstory. The original is slow and very little happens. But since I had heard that the 2 movies ended differently,  I found myself so much more tense watching the original and wondering if Dan Evans was going to get Ben Wade on that train. Was he going to fall into temptation and not try at all? Was he going to get shot down by Wade’s gang? I got really into it.
And all this began an exploration of a genre of movie that I had never explored before. Westerns weren’t a thing watched much in my home growing up. And so I had a whole lot of catching up to do. I rented movies like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kind, The Magnificent Seven, Silverado, High Noon, Once Upon a Time in the West, Shane, Unforgiven, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Stagecoach, True Grit, Hang ‘Em High, How The West Was Won, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, El Dorado, Shane, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and many many others.
And after seeing all these movies, what I think is odd about the movie, “3:10 to Yuma,” is how I think the original movie and its remake actually fall into 2 different subgenre’s of Westerns. The original could fall into the subgenre some might call, “Classic Western.” The Classic Western generally focused on the rugged individual (or individuals), a clear hero taking a “black and white” moral stand in a place where “progress” has created a whole lot of grey area, and where good and evil where clearly defined. I don’t think that the remake of “3:10 to Yuma” falls into these same tropes. Some would call these sorts of Westerns “Revisionist or Anti-Westerns.” Movies where good may not triumph over evil and the hero that eventually surfaces shows up in an unlikely place or turns out to be not that much of a hero at all.
What I love most about the original “3:10 to Yuma,” is how on the edge of the seat I was watching it. Like I said, I literally was not sure if Dan Evans was going to be victorious. But it’s a classic Western… of course Evans was going to make it. The thing is, I hadn’t seen a lot of Westerns yet and I expected Westerns to be “Anti-Westerns,” where the “hero” often doesn’t make it to the end and rarely stays purely good. I now wonder if it was my own past movie experiences that left me with uncertain expectations and made the original “3:10 to Yuma,” so unpredictable?
The other thing that get’s me with original “3:10 to Yuma” is how courteous Dan Evans and Ben Wade are to one another. Wade is not a completely evil guy. Evans isn’t a completely good guy. They both have their flaws. They both have places where they give into temptation. They both follow their own code of ethics. The both are “good” at what they do. It’s just that Wade is much more ethical skewed. And yet, although Wade clearly has a moral deficit, Evans assures Wade that his actions aren’t personal. Evans invites Wade (in cuffs) to his family’s dinner table. Evans mostly is incredible polite to Wade. Wade knows that his posse is coming to get him and yet he sincerely tells Evans’ wife that he hopes he’ll be able to get Evans home safe. Wade tries to make a deal with Evans in order to keep Evans from getting hurt when his posse comes. It’s clear that Evans doesn’t respect Wade’s life as a crook. It’s pretty clear that Wade would never want to be a poor rancher like Evans. And yet they show respect to one another. I don’t know. Does this Western have something that it could teach our society today about respect? Rewatching the movie recently, I found myself so surprised to see the good guy and bad guy show so much kindness and respect to one another. I wonder if yet again, “3:10 to Yuma” is simply showing something that I’m not used to seeing today.

Some of My Favorites: Groundhog Day

Review of one of my Favorites: Groundhog Day

THE SKINNY

Story (from IMDb): A weatherman finds himself inexplicably living the same day over and over again.

Themes: goodness, living a worthwhile life, finding happiness in hopelessness.

Age Appropriateness: (Rated PG) Pre-teen (11-12) and up (the themes and drama may not be interesting to a younger audience).

MY TAKE: (Spoilers for Groundhog Day below)

I love the movie Groundhog Day… not just because I think it is funny, but because it always leaves me thinking (about 2 things really).  First the movie tends to get me thinking about grief. In the film, Phil, finds himself stuck in a hopeless situation, destined to live the same day over and over again. To make matters worse, he is stuck living those days with himself. It quickly becomes a life with little hope. Without the promise of another day, there is little to look forward to. And yet the time loop Phil is experiencing is not that unlike his life. Even without the “movie’s dilemma,” Phil is stuck in a job he does not love, stuck living alone and miserable, and stuck with himself (due to his pride and mean demeanor). The hopelessness he finds in repeating the single day, just highlights the hopelessness of his life in general.

I think Groundhog does a great job exploring what goes on when we face situations we see as hopeless. The movie is filled with some of the general feelings many go through when dealing with situations filled with pain, hurt, hopelessness, helplessness, and extreme loneliness. It’s interesting to watch Groundhog Day with an eye to the psychological journey Phil goes through.

But I think the most interesting thing to think about while watching this movie is considering the question, “why?” Why DID Phil repeat the same day over and over again? Based on what Phil learned and did in those repeating days, some have figured that Phil must have repeated that same Groundhog Day for 8-10 years. But why? Why is the day repeating? Why does only Phil know that it is repeating? The movie doesn’t say. It is this fact, that makes Groundhog Day is the best version of the whole “day repeating over and over again” or “time loop” fantasy out there. It is when other movies have tried to explain why the day is repeating that I think the conceit loses some of its interest (in movies like Happy Death Day, Edge of Tomorrow, 12:01, or 12 Dates of Christmas).

When any of these other movies shift from “living the day over and over again,” to “having to successfully jump through a series of hoops to fix it,” often the movie loses some of its appeal for me. And I think that’s the best part of Groundhog Day. We never know why the time loop is happening. Phil never figures out what he “needs to do” to stop it, and when it does stop the audience is left having to guess what actually did stop it. Was it because Phil finally became the best version of himself, or was it because he got the girl, or was it because he truly found happiness, or was it some sort of combination of all of that?

My favorite theory of the movie, is that the day isn’t repeating over and over for Phil at all; but rather it is repeating for Rita (Phil’s producer). The movie shows at one point that the day continues even after Phil dies (Rita and his camera man are seen identifying the body). This means that the day is not repeating based on Phil, he’s just somehow knows that it is repeating. Rita also explains early on what she is looking for a man. Is it possible that the day is repeating until there is a man around who fits Rita’s wish list. Is a “higher power” helping Rita get her desire?

Because of the missing explanation, Groundhog Day allows the  viewer to consider what it means to be happy and to “become” a good person. This theme is one that it explored in many faiths. In the Christian tradition, you hear people often discussing what “putting on Christ” looks like and trying to figure out the best way to do Christian education or make Christian discipleship a reality. 

What I like I best about Groundhog Day is how even though Phil might become the “best version” of himself (he becomes more humble and selfless, he grows to like other people even kids, he improves his mind, becomes more romantic, kind, he learns new skills and even how to play an instrument), he is still him. He never loses his flippant, sarcastic, attitude. Sure, Phil becomes the “best version” of himself, but he’s still him. It reminds me of Paul in Scripture. Paul has a radical conversion in the book of Acts. He goes from being Saul to Paul. He changes from Christian persecutor to Christian evangelist. His heart, attitude, and life drastically change. But Paul’s nature stays the same. Paul continues to be a person who desperately seeks a close relationship with God, someone who is all in and rarely wavers. He had the same zeal and passion. God didn’t change Paul’s personality, just transformed it to become more Christlike. Is that something like what we see happening with Phil in Groundhog Day?

Little Women, Loneliness, & the Trinity

THE SKINNY

Story (from IMDb):Jo March reflects back and forth on her life, telling the beloved story of the March sisters – four young women, each determined to live life on her own terms.

Themes: family, accomplishing your dreams, friendship & love, woman inequality of yesteryear, loneliness, being a good neighbor/caring for others. 

Age Appropriateness: (Rated PG) Pre-teen (11-12) and up (the themes and drama may not be interesting to a younger audience).

MY TAKE:

This movie review is coming from someone who does not know much about Little Women. I’ve never read the book. If someone were to tell me that they were more of a “Meg” or more of an “Amy,” before seeing this movie I would have had no idea what they were talking about. I am pretty sure that I saw the 1994 version of the movie (but the “pretty sure” in this sentence shows how little of an impression it left on me).

With that disclaimer aside, I have to say that I found this version of Little Women to be completely compelling. I found the chemistry between the family members very believable and I truly wanted to find out what happened next (particularly since I legitimately didn’t know what was going to happen next). Since seeing the movie, I’ve read that one notable change in the movie from the book is how the movie tells the story through a series a flashbacks. This totally worked for me. I loved how the “current day” situations “fill out” the past flashbacks and vice versa. I would highly recommend the film.

Major Spoiler Below

 But I don’t think that you can talk about this film without mentioning the ending. Based on what I’ve read, apparently the ending of the movie drifts away from the original book. The movie ends with this giant question mark. Did Jo marry Friedrich Bhaer in “real life” or was this just in Jo’s book? Since Jo proves that she is an unreliable narrator (several times she is willing to change her stories to make sure they are published), it is unclear how she changed the ending of her story. When she allowed her “book persona Jo” to marry Friedrich is this because (a) she didn’t want to include what really happened to the book at first so her “book persona Jo” could live a life of freedom she wasn’t able to or (b) did she allow her “book persona Jo” to be married at the end in a way she never did because it was necessary to get the book published.  The feeling I got from the movie was the second.

But as I read some reviews on the film, I realize that my general feelings of the end of the movie was a little different than what I read other’s had. Many of the reviews I’ve read seem to have felt that the end of the film was a celebration. Jo is thrilled to realize her dream. But I found the end of the film to be bittersweet. This is probably because the scene of the movie that drew me in the most was the conversation between Jo and her mom, where Jo is second guessing her decision not to marry Laurie. She knows that she doesn’t love Laurie, but she feels so alone. Then at the end of the film, Jo is finally getting her first book published, but instead of celebrating she can’t help but think of her book’s fictional end. Is it possible that she wishes that this was the conclusion of her own story, rather than just achieving a book deal on her own. My read on the film’s conclusion was a moment of accomplishment twisted by loneliness.

I really liked that sort of complex ending. During my time in seminary, it was in the trying to make sense of the Trinity that I saw the most growth in my relationship with God. For the first time, I really took time to reflect on what it might look like for God to have existed eternally in community. For me, this reflection changed everything. It helped cement for me, why it would be incorrect to say that God created the world out of a need for us or because he was lonely. It helped me reflect on some of what it might mean for us to be created in the image of God. Could this be why our hearts long to belong to others and to love? It helped me understand why we can say God is love (since there needs to be someone else around for someone to be able to love). It also helped me better understand the important of humility and submission in our relationships with God and other people. All the “Persons of God” have had to submit to one another based on the roles they play. Jesus yielded to the will of God the Father while he was on earth (think of Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane). The Holy Spirit submits to the Christ by guiding people to God’s Word not to himself, but Christ ascended to Heaven in order to give the Spirit the prominent role on earth. Even the Father has submitted to Christ. In the Great Commission we read that “all authority in heaven and on earth” has currently been given to Jesus by God the Father. 

From this way of looking at things, the ending of Little Women makes total sense. Jo has accomplished something special, but she accomplished it alone. And being alone is not how we’ve been created to be. Jo’s victory is a lonely victory, one that might have been different if she had chosen to allow others into her “writing world.” But sometimes it is hard to have that kind of Godly humility.

1917 And The Wages of War

THE SKINNY

Story (from IMDb):April 6th, 1917. As a regiment assembles to wage war deep in enemy territory, two soldiers are assigned to race against time and deliver a message that will stop 1,600 men from walking straight into a deadly trap.

Themes: war, family, heroism, the cost of victory, perseverance

Age Appropriateness: (Rated R) Teen (13-18) and up (Deals with the very hard realities and affects of war/death/suffering).

MY TAKE:

I really liked this movie.

As many of you probably already know, what makes this WWI period movie stand out from others is how the film has been shot in a way to make it appear like it’s nearly one long take. The director of the film claims in interviews that this was done largely to ratchet up the tension (make the audience feel like there is a real ticking clock), and force the audience to really stick with the characters (making you feel for them). I think the film successfully does both of these things really well.

But what I felt the style of filming did most, was add another character to the movie. The surroundings… the location… the sets…. almost became a character itself. In many films, between the constant cuts between individuals, perspectives, wide shots, and jumping to different characters doing different things, often the location the characters are in become little more than backdrops in the frame. With the style used in 1917, I couldn’t help but take in the surroundings while following the characters since there weren’t any perceivable cuts. The places the characters walk, crawl, or run through become more significant, more real, and more important. And using this style in a war movie… I found particularly impactful.

War leaves a giant mark in its wake. Whether the movie lingering on cramped trenches, treacherous no man’s lands, leveled countrysides, or decimated cities, you couldn’t help but notice how war had an affect on everything: homes, buildings, roads, farms, and even Forrests and rivers. And as you saw how war damaged everything it touched, it became even harder not to notice how war was damaging every person it touched too (sometimes in major ways and sometimes just subtly). The bleak landscape also made the acts of compassion in the movie (both the compassion of our main characters and that of characters we only see briefly in the background) stand out even more.

I really liked this movie. It was one of those movies that I just had to sit with for a while at the end. It made me think about how terrible war is. It made me think about how hard it would be to even know what it meant to “do good” in such a place. And while it in no way compares to the horror of war, it made me think of the struggles we all face today trying to be do right in the often broken and sinful world we live.

Knives Out and the Sliding Scale of Goodness

THE SKINNY
Story (from IMDb): A detective investigates the death of a patriarch of an eccentric, combative family.

Themes: family, keeping secrets, kindness, comparison between the beliefs we hold and how we put them in action (or don’t)

Age Appropriateness: (Rated PG-13) Teen (13-18) and up (Deals with adult themes like murder, drug use, language, and some sexual discourse. But even more so, because of the pace and story younger kids may easily lose interest).

MY TAKE:
Knives Out was probable the movie I enjoyed watching the most this last year. The movie plays like a classic “parlor-who-done-it.” You are introduced to the family of suspects early on, you get to slowly uncover clues, and at the end you get that wonderful moment where the incredible detective walks through “what really happened.” The movie is also done mostly “Columbo style.” You are shown who most likely committed the crime very early on and most of the movie is a cat and mouse game between the most likely murderer and detective. The very early twist is that the Rian Johnson (screen writer and director) works hard to make you really like the “murderer.” I found myself oscillating for most of the movie between (a) hoping that it would turn out that the individual didn’t actually commit the crime and (b) hoping that the detective wouldn’t figure it out if they did.

(major spoilers ahead)

It is a real trick to get an audience to root for the person who we are told very on in the movie is a murderer. And I think Johnson tries to get us on Marta Cabrera’s side through 3 very affective techniques. First, he makes the murder completely accidental (making the situation such so that Marta can’t confess). Then Johnson makes the other characters so unlikable that you can’t help but root for Marta. Then finally, Johnson sprinkles in a good deal of “Pavlov dog.” I lost count on how many times other characters in the movie told me in one way or another that Marta was a good person. How can I not like Marta if everyone keeps telling me how good she is?

Let me tell you, these strategies totally worked for me. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. I completely rooted for Marta. But as I’ve spent time really reflecting on the movie, I keep finding myself wondering…. how good was Marta really? Marta lies and sides steps the truth all over the place (really challenging for someone suffering from Emetophobia, getting physically sick every time she lies), she hides evidence from police, partners with the morally ambiguous black sheep of the family, drives dangerously in a car chase, and seeks to pay off a blackmailer. And she does it all this so she can protect a mother who is in the country illegally and keep a fortune that she deserves no more than anyone else in the story. Is Marta actually a good person?

I wonder if it is so easy to buy into Marta being good because Johnson uses a sliding scale sort of understanding of morality that most of us (at least in some small part of our hearts) believe in. People often think they aren’t that bad because they have that one uncle (or other family member) who is way worse. But that uncle has a neighbor who is worse than them and that neighbor has a coworker worse than them and so on. I wonder if we could somehow scientifically measure how “bad” everyone in the world was and then put the 2 absolutely worse people in the same room together, that after they spent some time together, they would both leave muttering, “I knew it, at least I’m not as bad as that guy.” It is so easy for us to look around and at the very least find someone we believe is worse than us because we convince ourselves that that their sins are worse than ours.

Is Marta good? Well, she doesn’t seem as bad in some of the same ways that others in the movie are. But does that make her good? And when stuck in a couple really tight spots she doesn’t do the MOST reprehensible things. But does that make her good? Not really… it just makes her not repugnant. Is Marta good? No. But neither are the rest of us.

I’ve seen a quote going around on Facebook recently possibly from John Alan Turner. The quote reads, “It’s hard to convince people that a God they can’t see loves them, when a church they can see doesn’t seem to like them.” I totally agree with the quote… but I’m not sure I agree with it for the same reason many other’s might. When I read that quote, what I realize is just how much I am part of the problem. Let me be honest for a minute, when I really think about it there is not a single person on this planet that I have spent a whole lot of time with that I’ve actually liked ALL the time. How I am going to show God’s love when I don’t ALWAYS like anyone?

The church is full of people who aren’t ALL that great ALL the time. In fact, I would argue that this statement probably includes every single person in the church. It’s always going to be hard for the church to convince people of God’s love, because none of us are able to share it with everyone, when they need it, all the time. Most of us may be more good than that one crazy uncle most of the time, but that doesn’t make us “good” people. Thank goodness we have a Savior.

Cats CGI Tails, Tales, and Tolkien

On Christmas day, one of my family’s traditions is to see a movie together. The last couple years we have gone to see musical films. Two years ago, it was The Greatest Showman. Last year we saw the new Mary Poppins movie. So of course, this year we just had to go see the movie… Cats.

I have never seen a stage production of Cats. In fact, all I knew about the musical was that a lot TV satire seem to make fun of the production. And after seeing the movie Cats, I feel like I can make 2 general comments. First, I can see why many people don’t enjoy the production. I believe that in one crucial way, Cats is similar to the White Christmas. Neither have much of a story line and what little story line there exists seems to be there to push forward more opportunities for individuals or groups to showcase their talent in singing and/or dancing. Cats like White Christmas, is less about the story and more about the spectacle, the showcase, and the presentation. This leads me to my second general thought. I bet that the stage production of Cats, is an amazing spectacle. I bet it is an incredible thing to watch.

I didn’t enjoy the movie Cats nearly as much as I bet I would enjoy a live production. Like many reviewers of the film, I had a problem with the CGI in Cats. I didn’t think that the special effects were bad. I actually believe that the tails, and ears, and CGI cat outfits were kind of neat. The problem was that all that CGI was always right there in your face and it doesn’t even try to convince you that you are looking at a real cat. This for me made the spectacle of the movie I was watching seem less spectacular. As people sang, I found myself wondering, how was this song digitally improved? As people danced, I wondered how many edits were made and how much it had been “modified” in post production. The CGI could always been seen, and it made me wonder how much more of the movie was fake, ultimately making the spectacle seemed less impressive to me.

I am not usually against CGI or special effects. I usually am very forgiving with these things if they help further the plot of a story. But apparently for me at least, if there is little to no story, CGI actually becomes very distracting.

All this thinking about the ways I critique movies changing based on how good or compelling a story is, made me reflect a little on J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien, creator of The Lord of the Rings, had a very high view of story. He believed that one of the most important things that human beings could do was tell stories. As a Christian, Tolkien argued that our entire universe could be described as one giant story, created by the Word of God. Tolkien is quoted saying that “fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker.” We desire to hear and tell stories because we are made in the image of the Master Storyteller, God. In The Oxford Inklings: Lewis, Tolkein And Their Circle, Colin Duriez writes that Tolkien believed that a good fictional story helped readers see their own world through a restored vision and allowed them to “…escape from the prison of narrow and distorted views of life and meaning.” Further, Tolkien believed that the greatest stories we could tell also point readers to the greatest story, Jesus. Duriez writes that for Tolkien the Gospels, “… had all the structural features of a fairy tale, myth, or great story, and, in addition, it was true in actual human history- the greatest storyteller of all had entered his own story.”

I wonder what people would have thought if Cats had a great story? If it had been the kind of story that J.R.R. Tolkien describes above, would critics been as annoyed with all the CGI waving tails? But because Cats is not a great story, but rather is supposed to be a big flashy show of talent, I wonder if maybe those CGI tails blurred too many people’s ability (including mine) from seeing all the talent being displayed behind those tails…. or do I mean to say it kept us from seeing all that talent in front of the tails?

Crawl, Alligators, & True Fear

THE SKINNY
Story (from IMDb): A young woman, while attempting to save her father during a category 5 hurricane, finds herself trapped in a flooding house and must fight for her life against alligators.

Themes: family, inner strength, dealing with the dysfunction of your family, alligators in hurricanes are dangerous.

Age Appropriateness: (Rated R) Adult (18+ due to language, extreme/stressful/scary situations, intent to scare, and gruesome/ violent images).

MY TAKE (minor spoilers ahead):
To really talk honestly about the movie Crawl, I feel like I need to tell 2 personal stories…

Story 1: I am not originally from the Carolinas. I still remember my first summer here. My family had gotten a new puppy, and on my day off I took him to the South Carolina Coast. The very first picture I took on my phone from this trip was of a sign by the fresh water pond near the beach that warned us to stay away because there might be alligators in the water. The sign had a picture of a stick figure alligator coming out of the water and taking a bite out of a stick figure human. My first though was, “WHAT!?!! Where have I moved to!?!”

Story 2: Later at a conference in Lakeland, Florida, I had the opportunity to go to Circle B Bar Reserve. A nature reserve along Lake Hancock. There were a lot of interesting animals to see and a lot of alligators just “hanging around.” Everything was going fine… until I was standing along the shore of the lake, taking in the sights, and a boat zoomed by. The boat created a fairly large wave wake, the water came into shore, and then it receded. As it receded, suddenly it was revealed to me that I was standing 10 feet away from several REALLY large alligators. They had been there the whole time. I just hadn’t known.

Blame it on the fact that I have not lived near alligators or the fact that I don’t like surprises. But whatever the reason… it is a fact… alligators freak me out.

The movie Crawl freaked me out. Now I’m not saying the movie is good. There are plenty of times that the movie felt like a B level horror movie (people making stupid decisions and getting murdered because of those decisions, “creatures” (in this case alligators) being way too intelligent/ powerful, extra characters appearing completely out of nowhere so they can become monster chow, etc.). There is actually a couple scenes in the movie when our main characters, father and daughter, decide that this would be a good time to talk really loudly through the details of their family issues. And I found myself thinking, “Who would have this conversation now? Just hug each other and say you love each other! You are ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY ALLIGATORS ALREADY!!!”

But despite all this, Crawl freaked me out. I’ve read that the budget of the movie was only about 17 million. But with this small amount of money I thought a very tense movie with fairly believable special effect alligators was created. Just like my experience in Lakeland, the movie was really good and long quiet pauses with alligators suddenly appearing or not appearing at their whim (rather than my expectations). But then again… alligators really freak me out.

And isn’t that the case with all horror movies. So often, the degree to which a horror movie works depends largely on whether you find the premise scary. Sure every scary movie is going to get you with some of their sudden “jump” scares, but a movie with a scary clown or ghost is going to be scariest to someone who is sort of scared of clowns or ghosts.

Looking around at our world today, I sometimes wonder how much of people’s decisions and actions are based on fear. In Family System Psychological theory there is this idea that “anxiety” is the root problem in most dysfunctional dynamics between people. People’s anxieties cause them to go into fight or flight mode (just like characters in a horror movie), and the things they say and do usually hurt others or themselves. And what is anxiety other than fear? I wonder, is it fear that is behind so many of the mass shootings today? Is it fear that is interwoven with all the angry confrontations between politicians and those who are more conservative or liberal? Is it fear that is at the heart of the racism that is still evident today? Is it fear that causes so many to refuse to listen to others, to try and “shout” over others online, and demand “safe spaces” (places where they will only hear others who think and speak like they do)? In the United States, is fear one of our biggest problems?

I know in the movie Crawl, it is my fear of alligators that made an imperfect movie so incredibly effective. But I find myself going back and thinking about one of those ridiculous scenes between father and daughter. The daughter explains (at a very inappropriate time because of all the alligators) that she isn’t swimming fast enough on her college swim team. The dad’s response (also bad timing…. due to the gators), is that she just has to get out of her head and be the fierce competitor that she already really is. It makes me wonder, how much would our world change, if more of us more often would just get out of our own heads and stop letting fear be our guide.

Spider-Man Far From Home & Letting the Young be Young

THE SKINNY
Story (from IMDb): Following the events of “Avengers: Endgame” (2019), Spider-Man must step up to take on new threats in a world that has changed forever.

Themes: finding one’s place and exploring what it looks like to grow into the shoes of your mentor.

Age Appropriateness: (Rated PG-13) Middle Childhood (7-10) and up [lighthearted with some violence and language. Movie deals with early teen romance with lots of talk and awkwardness about being near the one you “like,” hand-holding, first kisses, etc.].

MY TAKE: I thought “Spider-Man Far From Home” was great! While I liked “Spider-Man Homecoming,” that film definitely felt like a teen coming of age movie first and superhero film second. This second installment felt much more balanced to me. In fact, with the back and forth between action and Peter Parker teen drama, I seemed organized a little like a miniseries of 6 comics. While I felt the big bad guy reveal was a little clunky (an extended monologue all about “look what I doing” said only for the sake of us viewers), overall I felt myself having a really good time. When Peter was dealing with teenage stuff I was left wanting more and when Spider-Man did Spider-Man stuff I was left wanting more. Overall I thought the movie was well balanced.

(Small spoiler ahead)

As I watched this movie I was happily surprised with how well it displayed the teen romance between Peter Parker and Mary Jane. In the early 2000’s when I was a youth director, I remember reading a book by Chap Clark called, “Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers.” Clark did research at Crescenta Valley High School in north Los Angeles County to explore what life was really like for the typical high school student. Clark’s book was challenging, arguing that we are created a difficult world for our teens. Movies, TV, and music often glorify the teen years and many adults end up trying to relive their own childhoods through their children and the children they work with. Youth are taught in many ways that their teenage years should be the best of their lives, but the adults in their lives abandon them to navigate those uncertain teen waters alone as the grown ups pursue their own interests.

Fortunately, I think some things have changed for the better in the last 12 years or so. But even still, when watching many high school students depicted on TV and in movies, there still seems to be many examples of teens navigating very adult/complex  problems with absent or clueless parents, portrayed by actors who look way older than a teen.

And this goes back to how much I appreciated the relationship between Parker and Mary Jane. It was awkward. It was sweet. And even the “big” ending kiss looked a lot more like how one would expect a first kiss. The movie let the “kids” be kids. And for all Parker’s bravery and desire to do good, it was fun watching a high school do the kinds of things you would imagine an awkward and immature high schooler might do. If a fellow student gets a compromising picture of you and threatens to post it, what would you do? If you could, would you send a killer drone after them? I wouldn’t… but I totally bought the fact that Parker might. And when Parker and Mary Jane hold hands it seemed convincing that there would be much more nervousness showing than electricity. Maybe it was because “Avenger’s End Game” was so dark or maybe it’s because we live in a world full of sex, meanness, hurt, and brokenness (sin actually). Whatever the reason, watching “Far From Home” with my 12 year old just felt nice…

Yesterday & The Consequences of Lying

THE SKINNY
Story (from IMDb): A struggling musician realizes he’s the only person on Earth who can remember The Beatles after waking up in an alternate timeline where they never existed.

Themes: Normal Romantic Comedy “Will they/Won’t They” theme. Also there is a very slight and breezy examination of what the purpose of life is and the ethical dilemma of creative theft.

Age Appropriateness: (Rated PG-13) Teen (13-18) and up [Just a little language and some drug references. However younger children may be bored by the pace and themes of the film].

MY TAKE (major spoilers ahead):
I think “Yesterday” would make a great “date movie.” It is a classic somewhat predictable romantic comedy that is legitimately funny in places. However, I think to fully get behind the movie, you need to buy the premise (or at least for the sake of the movie pretend to accept it). The premise is that the music of the Beatles is both transcendent and foundational to humanity. The movie’s central question (outside the romantic comedy theme) is: if you were a struggling artist and suddenly were the only one to know the music of the Beatles (A) Would you share the music (since the world NEEDs it)? And (B) would you be willing to pretend you wrote the music to get your own career kickstarted? The movie never even entertains the third option (C) would anyone care about the music of the Beatles if the music was taken out of its historical context?
At first, I thought I might write about this theme for the remainder of the blog (maybe I would have titled this post- “Would the Music of the Beatles be the Beatles if the Beatles weren’t the Beatles when they were the Beatles?”). I quickly realized that I don’t know enough about music to say much on this topic. But as I reflected more on “Yesterday,” I realized I didn’t find this theme nearly as interested as another. I kept finding myself thinking about the end of the film.

MAJOR SPOILER TIME!!!

At the end of the film, Jack (the struggling artist), meets one of the Beatles (who in this world never was a Beatle). The Beatle tells Jack that the most important things in life are (1) to love and (2) to tell the truth as much as possible. Jack goes on the admit on stage that none of the music he has been singing is his, Jack goes on to make all the songs free to the public, and then goes off to pursue the love of his life. In the epilogue of the movie we find Jack living in his hometown, teaching, married with kids, and happy. Apparently, there is some merit for Jack to seek the goals of (a) loving and (b) telling the truth as much as possible.

But here’s the thing. I just don’t buy this epilogue at all. The movie postulates that the Beatles music is transcendent. By singing Beatles songs, Jack became an overnight sensation simply due to the power of his approximation of the original Beatles’ lyrics and music. When Jack admits that the music was actually the Beatles and names the true authors, the movie seems to imply that no one would then go look up those names and the band (that does not exist in this world). And once people found out that the Beatles do not exist in this world, wouldn’t they just assume that Jack was lying and was the creator? I don’t think Jack could have returned to his hometown and to a “quiet” life. I think he would be bugged ALL THE TIME, by songwriters and aspiring artists and people moved by the music of the Beatles, who wanted to be near this humble and lying music genius & guru behind that music. I think Jack and his family would need to go into hiding, not live an “ordinary life” in his hometown.

I say all this because I think as a society, we know that people lie all the time. People exaggerate when they talk about the fish they catch, they often lie to themselves when they try to live with the mistakes they’ve made, they lie to their loved ones about how their loved ones look sometimes when trying to be nice, they lie when they are trying to tell stories from their past and forget some of the details. Some of us tell big lies for nefarious reasons… but most of us tell little lies all the time simply to fill in details, be nice, or cover our mistakes a little. In a world full of liars, I think the conclusion most would come to in “Yesterday” is that Jack was lying about not being the creator of all that Beatles music.

But for me the implausibility of the epilogue of the movie just seems to reinforce the overall message which I like… that a good life consists of loving and telling the truth as much as possible. Over the years, I’ve heard lots of sermons that talk about what the Bible teaches about lying. Often these sermons get stuck in the weeds. Are little white lies bad? What about lies that help someone (like hiding a Jew during the Holocaust)? What about lies that spare others feelings? When does a little nice lie become a big bad one? If we do live in a world full of lying and liars, who can be believed?

The good news on this topic that I find in my faith tradition, is that this legalistic debate is not something we have to fall into. We simply accept the grace of God that comes through Christ and try to follow Jesus by loving God and others. And that’s where I like the message of this movie. Maybe we can keep things simple, just understanding that one way we can love others is to “tell the truth as often as we can.”

Godzilla King of Monsters & Being Insignificant

THE SKINNY
Story (from IMDb): The crypto-zoological agency Monarch faces off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah.

Themes: This movie looks at the themes of justice and the environment. It attempts to wrestle with when tje “the ends justify the means?”

Age Appropriateness: (Rated PG-13) Middle Childhood (11-12) and up [lots of people are killed (by mercenaries and Giant Monsters). Aside from a few deaths most seem pretty inconsequential to most others in the movie].

MY TAKE (small spoilers ahead). I did not enjoy the movie Godzilla King of Monsters. I think the movie is guilty of a lot of things… 3 of the main ones are (1) letting characters make illogical decision after illogical decision; (2) having the “bad guy’s” plan have more if’s and maybe’s and holes than I’ve seen in a long time, and (3) including a ludicrous ending.

But I think the biggest problem with this Godzilla movie is one that plagues a lot of movies where big creatures are destroying cities. The bigger the disaster (giant robots, giant monsters, people or things with giant powers, etc.), the more insignificant the average person is. The mistake often with these kind of movies is when we spend a whole lot of time with the insignificant people doing fairly insignificant things while the giant robots, giant monsters, or things with giant powers are doing incredible stuff that you wish the movie was showing a whole lot more of.

Godzilla King of Monsters, has a huge human cast of insignificant people largely doing insignificant things. Occasionally one shines heroically, more often they fail stupidly/miserably, and nearly always I found myself not caring at all. Generally, I just found myself wishing that they showed more of the monsters doing their monstrous stuff. There is a moment toward the climax of the movie, when one of the main insignificant people exclaims that this time when Godzilla attacks King Ghidorah “we” (the U.S. military and Monarch) will be going with him. I snorted, thinking, “So what?” Just so you know in the movie, “we” ended up giving Godzilla exactly how much help you would imagine “we” could give.

Usually it’s not much fun spending most of a BIG cataclysmic movie with insignificant tiny people. And yet, I think that the same can be said about followers of Christ. So often we like to hear about big conversation stories, or hear about (or even be a part of) ministries that are doing giant things- being significant by changing people’s hearts or making the world a better place. But most of our own stories are not nearly that exciting. Few of us are writing the next Christian bestseller or changing the world as a missionary. Most of us are just loving a few, giving some, and helping a little as we go about our daily lives.

Most of our lives appear FAR more insignificant than the Monarch Agency in Godzilla (and that’s saying something). Is it possible that too often we don’t realize that God is up to some great things in our ordinary, routine, day to day lives. In the same way I am sometimes guilty of rubbernecking a car accident I pass on the road (and then end up contributing to the huge back up behind me), does my searching for significance around me sometimes blind me to what God is actually doing in my ordinary life (making me part of the problem)? Is it my own fault that I found the human characters in Godzilla, uninteresting? Do I need to work harder at learning how to enjoy the ordinary?