| |
Philpott Inside :: reviews
1 User Online
 Top
Recent Searches
- Find...ralph
- Gary Dumbrill
- Henri Nouwen
- Scholarship
- Gary Dumbrill
Feed
Archives
|
Thu, 16 Jun 2005
Jun 16, 2005, 14:38
[top/reviews/sites]
Ship of Fools
This is a very interesting Christian web site you might enjoy visiting: Ship Of Fools.
~Jason
[this date]
[0 comments]
[]
Fri, 04 Feb 2005
Feb 04, 2005, 14:38
[top/reviews/books]
Fighting For Joy
Excerpt from “When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy” by John Piper.
“I have found for 30 years that preaching and teaching about God’s demand that we delight in him more than anything else breaks and humbles people, and makes them desperate for true conversion and true Christianity…Nothing shows the direction of the deep winds of the soul like the demand for radical, sin-destroying, Christ-exalting joy in God.
…I say again: God and God alone is the final, ultimate goal of our quest. All that God is for us in Jesus is the Object of our quest for joy. When I speak of fighting for joy, I mean joy in God, not joy without reference to God. When I speak of longing for happiness, I mean happiness in all that God is for us in Jesus, not happiness as physical or psychological experience apart from God.” p. 31
[this date]
[0 comments]
[]
Thu, 04 Mar 2004
Mar 04, 2004, 14:38
[top/reviews/movies]
A Master Storyteller Presents a Crucified Christ
by Jon Walker
Hollywood is notorious for typecasting, but the truth is we all typecast in some form or another, consciously or unconsciously putting people into little boxes and then insisting they stay there.
And perhaps that is why, when I heard Mel Gibson was making a film about the crucifixion, I immediately formed an image of Mad Max on the Via Dolorosa. My standard joke became, “Danny Glover and Mel Gibson arrive at the end of the movie to rescue Jesus from the Cross.”
Yet, artists grow and mature - which is why Woody Allen, who once made one-liner comedies, and Clint Eastwood, who once starred in spaghetti westerns, are now respected Academy Award-winning directors.
For that matter, so is Gibson, with an Oscar for Braveheart.
All that to say: The Passion of the Christ reveals Gibson as a maturing filmmaker in his prime as a storyteller, and the movie makes it nearly impossible to keep him typecast as the star of the Mad Max/Lethal Weapon-styled movies.
The Passion of the Christ is both beautiful and brutal, capturing an authentic human spirit that is often missing in biblical movies, those where everyone tends to act stiflingly serious and talk in pious this-is-all-so-important tones. Gibson’s “Passion” is full of real people who laugh and cry and sweat and - yes, they bleed.
The essence of a great poem is that it gets you to look at the familiar in a different way, and in that sense, this film is poetic. Just the fact that it is presented in the original languages allows you to see a familiar story and hear familiar words but from an entirely different angle (there are English subtitles). This is a film layered with artistry and historic metaphor, and if you look closely, I think you’ll see Gibson’s homage to some of the great master paintings of Christ’s Passion.
The poetic artistry starts with the opening frames, set in the Garden of Gethsemane, where you immediately realize this is no tepid tale, one traditionally told with a blue-eyed, blonde, surfer-dude Jesus sprinkling love and faith across the cinematic landscape as if it were pixie-dust tossed from Tinkerbell’s wand. (Think good thoughts and you, too, can fly!)
Gibson’s Jesus has dark, ethnic features (probably closer to the way Jesus actually looked), and he’s so distraught as he begs the Father to release him from the suffering set before him that spit and snot drip from his face. A few moments later, you get a sense of the overwhelming abandonment Jesus must have felt when he returned to his disciples only to find them sleeping, and then he is tempted to break with the Father by an embodiment of Evil that re-appears throughout the movie. The temptations are not just about saving himself; they attempt to fan into flames a sense of despair.
The film’s pacing is taut and the tension simmers, but never boils over because of some well-crafted flashbacks that deepen the film’s emotional core. These flashbacks also explain some of the key relationships and critical events that led to the final twelve hours of Christ’s life.
Of particular note is a scene with Jesus, lean and calloused, working as a carpenter, engrossed, not in theology, but in carefully crafting a table. Evidently, one can be the Son of God and still find purpose and enjoyment in the ordinary tasks of life - a biblical message we often ignore.
This scene not only gives a rare glimpse of Jesus as a carpenter, but as it plays out, you see the playful interaction between Mary and Jesus as a mother and son who enjoy each other’s company. The scene reflects Gibson’s gift with humor, and it pulled an audible laugh from the audience.
Mary, portrayed by Maia Morgenstern, is shown as a real woman, full of faith but gripped by grief. No saintly icon, she struggles under the weight of what she is witnessing. The most memorable moment in the movie for me was a later scene, after the scourging of Jesus, where Mary got down on her hands and knees and began to mop up the blood with a cloth. Having watched my own wife care for two dead children, I thought the scene rang absolutely true in revealing a woman in grief and shock.
Jim Caviezel plays Jesus. He met Gibson when the director was developing a film on surfing (go figure!), and Caviezel came in to discuss a part. In the midst of the conversation, Caviezel said he wanted to suggest another film that would be far more important, and then the actor reached into his pocket and pulled out a pamphlet about Christ crucified.
What Caviezel didn’t know is that Gibson had been researching and thinking through the “Passion” movie for over a decade, and it was in that moment Gibson says he knew he was supposed to make the “Passion.”
Caviezel as Christ is clearly modeled after the Shroud of Turin, an ancient burial cloth inexplicably imprinted with the image of a crucified man, similar to a modern photographic negative. There are some who believe this is the burial shroud of Jesus and the image provides a supernatural picture of Christ. In some scenes, Caviezel mirrors the shroud’s image, including the bruising and blood droplets.
Related to the Shroud, the film is naturally informed by a Catholic text (Gibson is a Catholic believer) and so some of the scenes dramatize the extra-biblical explanations for ancient holy relics, or the extra-biblical stories of what may have happened as Christ walked the Via Dolorosa to Calvary.
Regardless of your own beliefs, the scenes serve the storyteller well, and provide the necessary emotional depth to move this movie beyond a grueling glimpse into Roman cruelty.
Another way Gibson keeps you directly involved in the story is through the use of startling point-of-view shots based on the “eyes” of different characters. For instance, you’re upside down as Jesus is carried, head hanging upside down, from the scourging, and you’re on the ground looking at the feet of Jesus through the eyes of the woman saved from a stoning.
“Passion” is a tightly shot film, built largely around close-ups and medium frames that keep the images personal and within reach; don’t expect an abundance of Cecil B. De Mille-styled panoramics. Rather, Gibson keeps the story focused on the messy, little details that reveal what happened on the streets of ancient Jerusalem during this one dawn and day.
For instance, I like the fact that Peter’s denials of Christ are impulsive and quick, near hysterical denials made in the grip of fear, as opposed to the typical telling where the whole world comes to a stop to hear each denial. Unlike us, these men didn’t know the end of the story, and it’s likely they responded with real fear and confusion.
This kind of authenticity is refreshing in a biblical play, and that’s as good a transition as any into the violence of the film. Gibson says he wanted to shock people, forcing them to see just how horrific the Passion must have been, and I think he succeeds. By the end of the film, it’s doubtful you’d even want to see Osama Bin Laden put through the torture Jesus willfully receives.
But the violence is never gratuitous. This is a much more serious and aesthetic film than something like Mad Max or Lethal Weapon. The violence is there because it is a story about the bloody, violent, cruel death of a man. Frankly, I have trouble watching something like E.R. because I dislike the gore, yet, there was only one moment in the “Passion” when I had to look away, and that was during a particularly brutal moment when the Romans whipped Jesus.
While we’re on this subject, the movie is rated “R” because of the violence. Gibson, noting the graphic violence, says, “I don’t think kids younger than 13 should see it.” I would agree with this assessment.
Is Gibson’s “Passion” a perfect film? Of course not, what film would be? I thought the opening minute or so was too dark and a baby-carrying embodiment of Evil during the scourging scenes confused some of the people around me (we were watching a rough cut).
Yet, one way I gauge a good story is whether it leaves me wanting more and whether it makes me feel like jumping into the world of the characters. Certainly at the crucifixion, you want nothing more than to get away from the oppressive and horrendous cruelty, but the final 20 seconds of the film, a creative take on the Resurrection, leaves you wanting to walk out of the tomb with Jesus and see the joy of his disciples.
But most of all, I longed to join this joy-filled Jesus in his carpentry shop, becoming a friend as well as a disciple.
If you push past all the hype and all the controversy, and even all the plans of using the film for evangelism, I think you’ll find The Passion of the Christ is a great work of art, the product of a gifted storyteller striving toward a master work.
There was a time when the arts often spoke about God, and it wasn’t shocking to have a major artist create a work based on biblical themes. In fact, it was often through funding from the church that great artists were able to create their masterworks. Perhaps Gibson’s gritty, bloody film will usher in a new age, where the church returns to supporting artistic expression as a means of telling the old, old story.
[this date]
[1 comment]
[]
Mon, 01 Mar 2004
Mar 01, 2004, 14:38
[top/reviews/movies]
Four Reasons to See the ‘Passion’
Over the next few weeks, you’re going to be hearing a lot about Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. No doubt any movie release from the Academy-award winning superstar-director would draw the public’s interest, but this film is about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the star of Mad Max and Lethal Weapon and that has many people wondering just what it’s going to be like.
Even before the final script was approved, some groups - who’d never actually seen the film - were expressing concern over its portrayal of Jews, and there were Christians concerned about the biblical accuracy of a Hollywood film.
Having seen the film, I believe these fears are unfounded, and you will want to see this movie.
Here are four reasons why:
First, this movie is a magnificent work of art; it may very well be Gibson’s masterpiece. From the opening frames, you can see that Gibson has taken great care to craft a movie with historical detail and authentic artistry. It’s an intimate and personal film that keeps you close to the story. In other words, this isn’t a film full of panoramic Cecil B. De Mille crowd scenes. This is a film that gets in your face, or rather, puts you into the face of Jesus as He wrestles with - but then submits to - the final steps of His mission on earth.
“Passion” is not your average, sometimes cheesy, Bible movie with stilted, King James dialogue between beautiful people following a Mr. Rogers-mystical Jesus. This Jesus is real with sweat and calloused hands, and blood and bruises from the beatings. The entire film is spoken in Aramaic and Latin (with subtitles), giving you a chance to hear familiar conversations in the language in which they were originally spoken.
You cannot be emotionally passive while watching this film; it grabs you by the gut from the very first image and does not let you go even after the credits roll (and so note, the movie is too intense for anyone under 13, and for that reason it is appropriately rated ‘R’ .
Second, this movie will be a cultural event that will have everyone talking - similar to what happened when the mini-series ROOTS was first broadcast or when PBS aired Ken Burn’s documentary on the Civil War. This movie will dominate discussions at work, in restaurants, and at church. Your neighbors will be asking about it, and your kids will be wondering about it.
Third, this movie destroys all the sterile stereotypes of a meek and mild Jesus - those myths and caricatures created by the enemies AND the friends of Christ. After seeing this film, you will no longer be able to cling to the fantasy that Jesus was a milquetoast Messiah.
Fourth, this movie powerfully tells the story of the defining moment in world history. In the Western world, we’ve dated everything according to these last few hours of Christ’s life. We time the sequence of history with BC and AD, recognizing that the death of Christ forged a permanent line through the days of Man.
Even if you choose not to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you cannot deny that His life was the most significant one in human history. Why would you want to miss a film that shows you why He is considered so significant?
[this date]
[1 comment]
[]
Sat, 17 Jan 2004
Jan 17, 2004, 14:38
[top/reviews/movies]
Passion Revisted
By Jason Silver
After watching the movie, we streamed out of the auditorium, and into the foyer. The pre-screening of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” was held in a large church. It was for church pastors and leadership, so there were all kinds of people milling around, recognizing each other, networking.
It was weird. I heard little snippets of conversation:
“Ya, let’s go grab a bite at McDonalds.” “Where’d you get that hat?” “He’s over at 1st Baptist now.” “She did what in her youth group?” “They have never wanted to try that again!”
…and so on.
People were stopping each other, noticing each other, crowding around the way we humans so often do when we’re at church; connecting and veneering.
I was a little thrown. We had just seen a brutal - BRUTAL - depiction of Christ’s last days on earth. The crucifixion scene was not the worst of it. The whippings, the blood, the gore… it was disgusting. Looking around the foyer, it was as if these people had forgotten all about it seconds after the film was complete.
We Christians remember the cross and use words like victorious, saviour, lamb of God… these are clean words. These are inspiring and beautiful words. These were clean, inspiring, even beautiful people. But what of the gore? What of the disgusting? Did we forget already?
We pre-planned to meet with other staff from our church at a food court nearby. As I walked up to them, the obvious question was asked. “What did you think?!” I enthused.
Scowls. “Ask a specific question.” “That’s too general.” They were obviously troubled about the movie. One person almost fainted from the blood. Another person thought they could never recommend it to their non-Christian friends.
I was really shaken- as I write this now, I realize it’s taken me four days to even process it. I just thought everyone would feel as positive about the movie as I did.
Positive? About wanton violence and glorious gore?
We’ve done this story up like a birthday cake with chocolate icing. The whole point of Jesus’ life was to die for our sins and to suffer on our behalf- in our stead! But the suffer part is forgotten and we remember only plastic crosses and Easter lilies. Of course it’s gruesome! It was one of the most cruel ways to murder another human being, and we all swung the hammer- so to speak. I think we MUST look without blinking, and we must know. We need to be aware of what was done- even if we don’t believe.
Who knows, maybe that’s about to all change for you? If Jesus did that, then why wouldn’t I believe?
[this date]
[0 comments]
[]
Mon, 01 Dec 2003
Dec 01, 2003, 14:38
[top/reviews/movies]
Cat In The Hat Not So Funny
Review excerpt from Plugged In, Focus on the Family
Conrad is a rambunctious 12-year-old boy who tends to make huge messes in the process of entertaining himself. By contrast, his younger sister, Sally, isn’t at all spontaneous or fun-loving. She’s controlling, and obsessively organized. Their single mom tries to juggle parenting, and a career, among other things.
One day, Conrad and Sally are left in the “care” of a rotund, bespectacled babysitter named Mrs. Kwan, who can’t seem to stay awake. That’s when they’re visited by the Cat in the Hat. With the help of impish whirlwinds Thing 1 and Thing 2, the Cat proceeds to make jokes and turn a spotless house into a disaster area. Can the kids get their home back in order before mother’s important business party?
Anyone who has read the classic children’s book by Dr. Seuss knows that everything is back in place when Mom sets foot in the door. Even so, this film has a number of off-color surprises. Families with young children might find themselves echoing a character from the book who said, “I do not like the way that they play. If mother could see this, oh what would she say!”
The family’s pet fish provides a moral conscience, though it’s debatable whether the movie buys into it. For example, he calls the Cat’s wild tricks “MTV-style flash at the expense of content and moral values.” That’s a pointed, accurate assessment of MTV, but the kids side with the Cat, implying that substance and morality can’t trump something that’s a lot of fun. Still, the Fish makes a good point.
Sexual nuances and violence abound in this movie. The Cat cuts off his own tail with a meat cleaver. Quinn plummets from a great height and lands in a sea of purple ooze. The Cat gets treated like a piñata by children at a birthday party who wail on him with bats. One rather large boy wallops him in the groin. Other physical gags involve children getting batted about by the Cat’s tail, a snoozing Mrs. Kwan being ridden down stairs like a toboggan, the Cat punching an unseen elephant, and a fracas among politicians on TV.
The Cat in the Hat is a good-looking film. It should be since it was helmed by acclaimed production designer Bo Welch (Edward Scissorhands, Men in Black II, Batman Returns, Beetlejuice). Welch does an excellent job of recreating the cheery pastel universe and Salvador Dali-esque accessories of Dr. Seuss.
Unfortunately, that’s as interesting as it gets. The plot draws from the books, but even then it’s a pretty thin story for anyone over 10: spotless home gets trashed; cat cleans up; family ends up better off than it started. That would be fine if the jokes were restrained enough for the grade-schoolers Seuss had in mind- not so risqué.
Sometimes it’s clever, but I felt like I was watching a sketch comic hiding behind feline makeup while trying to impersonate the Genie from Aladdin. Without a compelling story to back up his antics, that act gets old quickly. Furthermore, barely veiled profanities and subtle humor involving sex, porn, urination and vomiting will unnerve parents wondering what rule Myers will break next in his tireless pursuit of “fun.”
[this date]
[0 comments]
[]
|
|
