Monday, January 29, 2007
"My favorite Bible story is the one where Noah's Ark gets attacked by Pirates!"
I enjoy watching poorly-made movies, and whenever a Bible epic movie is universally derided by both christians and nonchristians, well, I have to watch it.
Enter Noah's Ark, the 1999 NBC miniseries starring Jon Voight as Noah. Voight, the actor who I will always remember as the guy in Anaconda that gets eaten by the big snake, brings his own unique style to our common ancestor. Mary Steenburgen plays Noah's wife, Alexis Denisof (Wesley on Buffy/Angel) as Noah's son Ham, and F. Murray Abraham plays Lot. That's right, Lot. Apparently, they thought that it would be more interesting if, before the Flood, Noah first had to escape the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with his family and his best friend Lot. Incidentally, Carol Kane plays Lot's bickering wife who is thankfully turned into a pillar of salt during the escape (Lot keeps one of her salt fingers as a souvenir). Noah later suggests that a scribe should write down what happened at Sodom, but Mrs. Noah tells him that scribes aren't to be trusted - by the time they're done, they'll probably say that Noah's family wasn't even at Sodom. (!!!)
So, time goes by and the wickedness of the people becomes apparent when they have to rescue Ham's bride-to-be from being sacrificed to Molech ("Well, she was the only virgin we could find on short notice.") So, Noah is instructed by the Lord to build an Ark ("What's an Ark?"), and he does so, but he gets behind schedule, so the Lord arranges for Lowes' to miraculously deliver several truckloads of 1"x12"s during the night. The animals began to arrive, courtesy of stock footage, and are poorly composited onto the shot of the boarding ramp, along with a pair of CGI dodo birds. Ham notes that they didn't build a rudder on the Ark ("The Lord will guide us," says Noah), and this becomes a point of dispute later on.
The rains comes and go, and Noah's clan then spends weeks and weeks onboard the Ark. In order to ration their stockpile of food, no procreation is allowed, and therefore, no sex. Needless to say, this causes quite a bit of tension amongst the four couples cooped up at sea with nothing else to do, but fortunately, the gorillas act as chaperones and quickly intercede in any scenes that involve kissing. (Incidentally, a film goof: there's one scene with Shem and his wife where his wife is holding a koala bear, and apparently, unnoticed by the editors, the koala bear poops all over Mrs. Shem.)
Then they get attacked by pirates, led by the now-corrupt Lot, who starts the fine tradition of sea pirate captains having only one eye and having to wear a patch. They almost prove a match for our heroes until a divinely-sent tornado sweeps away the pirate ships. Later, Ham decides to build a rudder for the Ark, but Noah stops him, leading to a fist-fight that is interrupted by Noah's wife. Noah tries to defend his actions: "He tried to build a rudder against the Lord!"
In the meantime, the Lord is having trouble deciding whether or not he should just finish the job and wipe out the remnants of mankind, so he goes away to think for a while on the subject. His absence drives the passengers of the Ark mad. Like, looney-tunes mad. Our first clue is Japheth and wife strolling along the promenade deck on improvised stilts. Next, Shem begins to have indepth conversations with a puppet he made out of a grapefruit. The rest of the family goes mad in their own unique ways as well for a while (Noah: "There's monsters under the bed. I'm leaving.")
Anyway, they finally hit land, where they immediately release the animals and then they go forth to multiply.
Where do I even begin? I'm not even going to touch the theological problems with this film. Aside from combining two Bible events that are separated by several hundred years, this has to be one of the goofiest adaptations I have seen ever. This movie makes Jackie Chan's Around the World in 80 Days seem like a faithful literary adaptation. Every time I started to turn it off, it would just get more and more bizarre. Rarely do I get the chance to see something so gloriously awful. Rent it today.
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Ultimate Special Remastered Colorized Extended Edition for Families with Children and Pets
Random thoughts not quite worked out in my head:
It probably started in the 1980s, and there were movies like Blade Runner or Aliens that suddenly were realized in altered form as "Director's Cuts" or whatever, either to "present the director's original vision", make money, or some of both.
Then came the Star Wars Special Editions in 1997, where suddenly Lucas took his old films and added scenes, redid visual effect shots, etc. to produce what was hailed as the definitive version of the films. Of course, he changed them again seven years later. But, it's not it's the first time he did this - the original Star Wars film was actually altered a bit for its 1980 theatrical re-release - and frankly, I like the new versions better (with the exception of the new dance number in Jabba's palace - ack). I think this is also a case of where we have to use Francis Schaeffer's method of judging art, where we don't look at the individual work per se, but at the artist's sum total of work. Besides, who are we to say when a work of art (or film) is done? When it is released to the public or when the artist says it's finished?
Anyway, what I find interesting is the new "Star Trek Remastered", because here is something that appears similiar, but I think is actually quite different. "Star Trek Remastered" is the new high-definition re-release of the old-school "Star Trek" from the 1960s, except with updated visual effects shots. From the previews I've seen, it looks great, actually. But what is weird about it is that it's not the original filmmakers that are doing this project - rather, it's being commissioned by the corporation that owns the "Star Trek" franchise, so it's like "Wait, whose art is this? Who is this third party making these changes?"
At first, it's a bit disturbing, but then again, I guess people have been doing this for years, anyway. I mean, without even mentioning the "Bowdlerized Shakespeare", one might argue that having a third party translating an ancient text into a modern language might be similar thing, but I think maybe the key thing here is that there is basically a fine line between changing the original and simply making an adaptation of the original: an artist can change his/her original, a third party cannot; but a third party can make an adaptation of the original. I think simply having a knowledge of the history of a work, along with any adaptations, helps to satiate any worries about the integrity of a work, but I think when this knowledge is lost is when it becomes a problem.
Anyway, random thoughts.
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, geek stuff, religion/theology/philosophy
Monday, December 18, 2006
"Thus Saith the Lord!"
First of all, I refuse to make any jokes around the phrase "I want these $*&%#! snakes out of my $*&%#! garden!!!" Why would I do that in the first place, you ask? Well, because Samuel L. Jackson has been hired to play God. (I mean, who else would they get, right?)
Inspired by... The Bible Experience is a rather ambitious project to create a fully-dramatized audio recording of the entire Bible, complete with sound effects and over 300 voice actors, including but not limited to Samuel L. Jackson, Denzel Washington, Angela Bassett, Cuba Gooding Jr. and lots more. Granted, they used the TNIV, but still, this should be a pretty nice recording. The New Testament is currently available from Zondervan, and the Old Testament should be out sometime next year.
Link: www.inspiredby.com
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Tleilaxu Face Dancers and the Righteousness of Christ
"In his life and death Jesus Christ fulfilled all the righteousness that God’s law requires. When we come to God in Christ, we are clothed in the righteousness that Christ fulfilled. Our works merit no favor from God. Only Christ, and his righteousness credited to us, merits God’s favor. And this we receive by faith, and faith alone." (John Piper) (See Galatians 3:27 and Romans 13:14)
Analogies always break down, but I found an interesting parallel:
In the Dune novels by Frank Herbert, a secretive organization known as the Bene Tleilax used genetic manipulation to create human shapeshifters called face dancers, who could pretend to be other people, which of course caused much political intrigue. As their technology became more advanced, the face dancers could not only change their face, but the size and shape of their entire body, and eventually even their minds. The problem came when they became such perfect copies of other people, that they forgot that they were face dancers and actually believed that they really were the people they were copying (which of course rendered them ineffective to the purposes of the Tleilaxu). For all practical purposes, they became who they were supposed to be.
When Christ enters our lives, we 'legally' become children of God and are instantly declared righteous (justification), then His Spirit works in our lives to make us righteous (sanctification) through a gradual process that takes the rest of our mortal lives (which is why we still sin in this life), until we are made perfectly righteous in the Resurrection (glorification). We are declared children of God, then He works in our lives to make us more like Him. We become who we are.
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Friday, March 24, 2006
Turn to Hymn Number What?
When peace, like a river,
attendeth my way,
when sorrows like sea billows roll;
whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet,
though trials should come,
let this blest assurance control,
that Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
and hath shed his own blood for my soul.
It is well with my soul,
it is well, it is well with my soul...
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, music, religion/theology/philosophy
Friday, December 16, 2005
At some point in church history...
The cheesy church sign saying was born.
Now, from the comfort of your own internet connection, you can make your own, just like I did above. www.churchsigngenerator.com supplies you with two different designs - just enter your saying, and voilà! Your own church sign. The site also has actual unaltered photos of church signs (honestly, no one could make those up) for your viewing pleasure.
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
"Stuck here in the middle with you."
(or "How to Tick Off Everyone")
No, this is not a discussion about severing ears; Tarentino, Da Vinci, or otherwise. Instead, it is a rant about things that frustrate me:
The Arts. I'm about to make some generalizations. Many nonchristian artists effectively deify the medium (whatever its message) and many christian artists try to justify their artistic endeavors to other christians by either 1) making sure it has some weak message in it that somehow might pass as a gospel presentation or 2) using it as a way to build 'authentic relationships' (whatever that is) with nonchristians to spread the gospel (which is a good thing, of course). But where else do you see christians making these rationalizations to justify their professions? It's just art! It's just a movie! It's just a song! Make art and enjoy art because you have the freedom to do so! The Arts are just communication; languages; another amoral thing to be used for either good or for evil. It's not that big of a deal as people make it out to be. Besides, it's all going to burn one day, so don't stress out about it.
Politics. It is God who brings the rise and fall of kings and empires, not Man. Personally, I have no real interest in politics, though I usually will vote, and vote conservatively. But politics are not going to save the world - you can't change people's hearts by changing their behaviors, through legislation or otherwise. I don't buy the argument of turning America "back into the Christian nation its forefathers meant for it to be" - just because Enlightenment-era deists use the same language as christians, that does not make them christians too. Most of the religious refugees had arrived generations earlier - far back enough for that current generation to not to know the faith of their forebears. Somehow I don't think when Peter wrote "be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good", that included revolution (and note that 'every human institution' included Caesar, whose religious persecution of christians was somewhat more intense than George III's tea taxations). Is it a sin for Christians to not be involved in politics? No. Is it a sin for Christians to be involved in politics? Also no. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting... But my kingdom is not from the world." I am proud to be an American, and when asked will gladly take up arms to defend it, but my first citizenship is in Christ's kingdom - we are but exiles sojourning in this world until His return. It's just politics! If you enjoy politicing, then do so! If not, then don't. Besides, it's all going to burn one day, so don't stress out about it. EDIT: If it's the Gospel of Christ that will change people's hearts, and therefore their behavior, should we concentrate our efforts on, say, trying to get the 10 commandments back in classrooms, or on proclaiming the Gospel?
MacArthur vs. MacLaren fistfights. (Well, not just them, but a subtitle with two extreme scots in it was fun to write - yet essentially another generalization.) This is really one of my biggest frustrations. I don't know what's going to happen to the church (I mean, of course it will survive - maybe not in the West, but somewhere). On one hand, I worry about poor doctrine spilling from the pulpits, yet, on the other, I worry that kneejerk reactions from those with good doctrine will put off the others before there is a chance for them to actually talk about it. "You're a bunch of legalists!" "Well, you're a bunch of antinomians!" [sigh] It's like learning to roast your own coffee beans - once your palette acquires the taste for freshly-roasted coffee (which is great), it's hard to go back to Starbucks, and your coffee-drinking options shrink considerably, but then suddenly you're the jerk that won't go out for coffee anymore [an analogy; not directed toward you, Jon, haha]. I don't know - how are we supposed to increase spiritual discernment in a loving manner? Especially when any challenge of religious thinking (both without and within christianity) is seen as "intolerant", "unloving", and "legalist"? Good grief. We need more of God's grace - not a blind eye, but loving grace - to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves." I need more of God's grace. And a cup of coffee (freshly-roasted, I hope).
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
"...and I'd like to give a shout-out to all the contributing editors..."
Sweet! Preaching Magazine (of which I am the art director) won the big award at the Evangelical Press Association 2005 convention! Woohoo! Click here to see for yourself our "Award of Excellence in Christian Ministries".
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Some Thoughts on Art, Part 2
My further-developing views on art. (Click here for Part 1)
I've gotten to the point where I just yawn whenever I hear Christians talk about the arts. Why can't we just make art and enjoy it, instead of coming up with all these idealistic reasons that Christians should come up with 'culture-transforming art' or whatever, as if we have to justify our enjoyment of it or something? Yes, a work of art can have a great impact on someone's life. Yes, that impact can even be what God uses to bring them to salvation. God can use The Passion just as much as he can MacArthur or Eldridge.
But this seems to be the motto of most Christian artists I talk to nowadays. They almost all quote C.S. Lewis and they almost all have their copy of Francis Schaeffer's Art and the Bible. Not that there's anything too terribly wrong with either of those, but how often do you hear plumbers and engineers work up some philosophical apologetic to support their vocation? More often than not, when asked why they chose their professional occupation, it's usually something to the effect of "It pays the bills, I'm good at it, and I enjoy it", or some combination of the three. No trying to 'christianize' it or whatever, even though these same people may take advantage of many opportunities during the day to share the Gospel. When Christian artists approach their work in a similar way and enter into the secular marketplace, they get accused of 'selling-out', unless of course, they go with the declaration of their intention of transforming culture.
Other Christian artists who don't necessarily buy into the cultural transformation camp may declare their intention of simply building one-on-one relationships with people in the secular art-world in order to share the Gospel with them. Now this is what should happen anyway (and does happen in other occupations), and this is how the Gospel is spread. Building relationships and allowing God to transform individuals through the power of the Gospel. But still, even this can be used a rationalization for a Christian's involvement in the arts.
But we don't need a rationalization for this. Art is just communication, a morally-neutral medium, not a 'worldly' thing that has to be redeemed. Like any other tool, it can be used for good or evil. It's not that big of a deal. It doesn't have to be capitalized (ie., 'Art'). Enjoy making and experiencing it because you have the freedom to so, and give glory to God that he has given the arts to you to enjoy.
Some additional observations to think about:
• Most of the time, the best and most innovative art is made by non-Christians. I have yet to find any biblical support that says this should be otherwise, or that it should be so. The Bible doesn't really have anything to say on who should produce better art, Christians or non-Christians. As a matter of fact, Paul says that "not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." (1 Cor. 1:26-29)
• Really good Christian art usually has a greater impact on Christians than non-Christians.
• When was the last time that you heard of a genuine revival occurring as the result of movement in the world of music or painting?
• Art is not a concept like Wisdom, Faith, Hope, Love, Freedom, or Knowledge. It is, however, a medium for conveying such concepts.
Thoughts and comments?
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Quote of the Day:
"Strange, that movies about Satan always require Catholics. You never see your Presbyterians or Episcopalians hurling down demons."
-Roger Ebert in his review of the movie Constantine starring Keanu Reeves.
Or Baptists, for that matter. We can totally hurl down.
But he's just saying that because he hasn't seen John Piper and R.C. Sproul's new action-drama:
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, geek stuff, religion/theology/philosophy
Sunday, October 31, 2004
October Thirty-First is...
Well, maybe it didn't happen like that, but video games are always more exciting that real life, right? (and no, it's not real video game, haha) But anyway, the following is the Reformation Day thing I wrote last year:
Aside from that weird commercialized druid holiday thing we have going on today (Oct. 31), today is also the day upon which in 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 theses upon a church door in Wittenberg, Germany (apparently beside everybody's else's theses which were also posted on the door, since they had to do things manually because apparently Steve Jobs and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet). This ended up hacking a lot of people off, because he placed the authority of scripture above the authority of the people running the church, and so much yelling (no doubt in Latin and German) and excitement ensued and the Protestant Reformation happened. Luther had intensely struggled with his own sinfulness in the sight of a holy God, until he realized that as it says in the Book of Romans, "the righteous shall live by faith" and that this faith was a gift from God, and so he was much happier after that. And so we too have a reason to celebrate, for we can be reconciled to God through Christ.
And so, while the following cannot possibly compare to that, this also means we can have cake, since this is a joyous occasion. German chocolate would seem appropriate, although I really don't like coconut, but I can scrape the icing off. No problem there. You can actually have my icing if you want it, I can scrape it off before I put the fork in my mouth.
ps. - for further reading...
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/biographies/96luther.html
pps. - One might also wonder how coconuts ended up in Germany to be put on cakes in the first place, since coconuts are tropical and Germany is a temperate zone - unless of course, you're suggesting that coconuts are migratory...
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Some Thoughts on Art, Part 1
If you boil it down, what we call "art" is just communication. Symbols that represent ideas. A medium (images, shapes, or sounds that represent ideas) and a message (the idea that is communicated). Paintings, music, film, writing, preaching, talking to your friend — all consist of a medium and a message. Even if a piece of art is just for entertainment or decoration, it still communicates a nonverbal message that causes recreation or a feeling of comfort. Now of course, it helps if you understand the language of the medium, else you don't receive the message. Some works of art take research to figure out what the artist was trying to say, by learning the language, context, etc. Likewise, an artist has to learn the language in order to communicate his message to his audience.
So instead of asking of a piece, "Is it art?" (because it is), perhaps a better question is "Is it good art?" How technically skilled is the artist in manipulating the medium? How well was the artist able to use the medium to convey his idea? How novel is the piece, and/or how well was the artist able to use or combine concepts in an original way? Has the artist created a new medium, language, or set of symbols in which to communicate his ideas (which would mean the audience has to learn the new language as well)? And so on.
Now, some mediums are better at communicating different messages than others. Blueprints are good for communicating how to build things. Music can convey emotions in an amazingly efficient manner. And when the style of music matches the message, all the better (for example, Rage Against The Machine is good art because it takes an intense style of music and matches it to a message of not-always-peaceful social upheaval.)
What I find interesting is that God, in His sovereign plan for history, decided to make His Word in a text-based format. Not film, painting, sculpture, or music, but prose and poetry, narratives and treatises. Hmm. Easily portable, easily reproducible, and not requiring too many resources, when compared to say, paintings and film. After all, sometimes a word is worth a thousand pictures. Text/speech has a clarity that music and paintings don't always have, and as Christians, don't we want to make our message as clear as possible to as many people as we can? When was the last time that you heard of a genuine revival occurring as the result of movement in the world of music or painting? Oswald Chambers realized this early on, and gave up the life of an artist to become a missionary (and posthumous author of the best-selling My Utmost for His Highest). As Paul says, "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" (Romans 10:14-15)
Now, just to clarify, I am both a visual artist and a musician. I have a BA in art and I make a living as a graphic designer. I paint, write songs, and make short films. I like "art" (by that I mean what we typically mean by "art": painting, music, etc.).
If you like making "art", great! God has gifted you with those abilities, and if you want to, you have the freedom to use them as you see fit. But remember, we are Christians first, and "artists" second. When we seek to communicate the Gospel, we must take care to never let our medium obscure the message.
Thoughts and comments?
EDIT (3-23-2005): Link to Part 2 (click here).
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Death by Language
A rose by any other name may be the same, but if you call it garbage, it's probably going to get thrown in the trash. The best way to get rid of something and to get away with it in the public eye is to either relabel or redefine it. Then, it can be eliminated. For example, you can relabel a person as an undesirable, and then you can throw him in the gas chamber. You can relabel a child as prenatal tissue, and throw him in the garbage.
You can also elimate something simply by redefining it. You can redefine a person's reputation as worthless in the public eye (whether it's true or not) and destroy their authority. You can redefine a concept until it doesn't mean anything at all, thereby elimating the concept because it doesn't have any meaning to anyone anymore. If you can redefine marriage to mean whatever combination/number of men, women, animals, plants, and minerals that you want, then you can do whatever you want. Assuming of course, that there is no authority outside of yourself.
Man has this nagging suspicion that many of the things that he is doing is wrong. How can he get rid of this guilt, yet continue to do whatever he wants? Redefine the rules. If it is wrong to murder a human, relabel the human as not-human, then get rid of it. And he must keep reminding himself of these new meanings until he really believes it. As longs as he believes that he can define authority.
On a lighter note, while the evolution of a language can have negative consequences, it can have good ones, or neutral ones, too. It is strange, after all, to see how the English language can have different rules that apply in different situations. Spoken English does not match written English. Turabian's written style doesn't match the Associated Press's style. What the heck am I supposed to do with...
Commas:
1. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli went to Krispy Kreme.
2. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli went to Krispy Kreme.
I am now told that No.2 is correct, which is very frustrating to me. I personally don't like it, and when I write my own stuff, I use No.1. Whenever I'm instructed to use No.2, I do so obediently and reluctantly.
Apostrophes:
3. Here is Andy Scates's coffee.
4. Here is Andy Scates' coffee.
I prefer No.3. To me, No.4 makes me sound plural, which is not accurate. I am not plural.
Quotation Marks:
5. While donuts may be considered a "dessert", they are often served at breakfast.
6. While donuts may be considered a "dessert," they are often served at breakfast.
No.5 is grammatically incorrect, which is extremely frustrating to me. Probably because I'm approaching the sentence like a math equation, and it doesn't work. It's like the hierarchy of parentheses is out of order. For example...
7. (x + 1) * (y + 7) = 20
8. (x + ) 1 * (y + 7) = 20
No.8 is obviously bad syntax. With the sentence No.5, I have basically kept the opening and closing of the quotation marks within the clause. No.6 may be grammatically correct, but it's just bad syntax.
Second-Person Plural Pronoun:
This is one of the places where the typically-disdained Southern dialect shines. The term y'all (short for you all) fills in where Turabian fails. To simplify, I submit that we drop the apostrophe, so that the word is yall, or perhaps respell it yaul, which visually resembles you more than yall does.
Anyway, these are a few of my grammatical pet peeves. And as language tends to evolve by use, I hope that by enforcing them, I can change the language. I hope that yaul will share my vision for a more efficient written English language.
After all, it's not like I'm trying to redefine divine law.
Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy
