You think your family car is crowded?

I'm just really allergic, not sleeping the best, worked very hard on the interview post and Monday's Pyro post, and am working on (hopefully) Thursday's Pyro post on the Blackaby view of divine guidance. So I don't have much! Sorry.

But I do have this!

Yeah, that spoon-trick you do is great — but...

...check this (on mute, imho):

Think of the practice and discipline that lies behind some of these feats.

(Of course, as a father, I do raise an eyebrow at the marketability of some of these talents....)

Interview with Ryne Pearson (screenwriter, Knowing)

Preface — earlier this week I had the privilege of being offered an opportunity to interview screenwriter Ryne Douglas Pearson, whose original screenplay was the basis for the hit movie Knowing (reviewed HERE). The offer was snapped up, technical difficulties were dealt with, and Pearson and I had a substantial chat Thursday morning.

As with the review, the first section will be light on spoilers, while the second will focus on details best not known going in. If you're at all interested in thoughtful science fiction with some great eye candy, I do encourage you to see the movie first. Then come back and read both parts.

Pearson had read my review here, and I'd done such research on him as I could, so we both came in with a little knowledge of each other. Ryne said I'd grabbed on to some aspects just right, and had other "takes" on the movie that were "unique"...which, er, not sure if that's a good thing....

We started to argue about whether Survivorman or Bear Grylls is better. Pearson observed that Survivorman would never permanently scar a brain with the image of squeezing elephant poo to get a drink of water.

Good point. Advantage = Survivorman, and Round One goes to Pearson. (My boys would have countered that Grylls doesn't spend the whole show whining about having to carry cameras around; Pearson could have retorted that that's because Stroud doesn't have a whole stinking crew carrying everything for him... it could have gotten ugly. But I digress.)

Then we started talking about the movie.

NOTE: recording equipment wasn't available; hence the lack of direct quotations.

Spoiler-free

Ryne Douglas Pearson began as a novelist— but not with a silky-smooth start. Before his first novel was accepted for publication, he racked up 139 rejections — and he's kept every one of them. His novel Simple Simon was developed into the Bruce Willis movie Mercury Rising. Ryne has worked on eight or nine screenplays, in addition to the five novels he has published. As proof that he is still interested in the novel-genre, Pearson is now working on a sixth to add to his ouvre. (Pearson would tell me that it also has elements of faith, is a "deep mystery" — and that's all he'd say!)


Knowing is based on Pearson's own original screenplay. It was taken up by writer-director Alex Proyas, who developed Pearson's story in a creative, unique manner. The three principle screenwriters were Pearson, Stiles White, and Juliet Snowden.

In Pearson's original screenplay, the events that drove the plot were assassinations, not disasters (you know this much from the trailers, so I don't rank it as a "spoiler").

Did Proyas commercialize the premise by focusing on spectacular disasters?

Pearson strongly believes that Proyas made the right decision. Pearson's script, if filmed as-was, would have been a more intimate affair focusing on the relationship of the father and the son. By taking the narrative in another, more spectacular direction, Proyas succeeded in bringing in broader audiences for a wider variety of reasons. But once the audience comes, it is the questions that arise from Pearson's story that they are asking and pondering.

Proyas was "smart" to go in that direction and (as he frequently said) Pearson "could not be more pleased."

So, was it a "message"-story?

In reply, Pearson alluded to Samuel Goldwyn's famous quip, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” He did not devise the story to send a message, and the movie was not concocted to send a message. The screenplay (and movie) were story-driven — but ultimate questions do necessarily arise from the tale. (More on that in the next section.)

So, similarly, with an array of elements in the story, including the Biblical allusions. Pearson has seen discussion of the story from Jewish as well as Christian (and other) perspectives, and he's delighted. Neither he nor Proyas were set on "beating anyone over the head" with a Message — or at least not with a specific take on the movie's central questions.

I told Pearson of my own movie-going experience as a longtime, convinced Christian. I told of the sense we all get as soon as we see a religious figure brought into a movie, as happens with Knowing. Most of the time, we know exactly where the story will go; and most of the time, we're right. But Knowing takes a different direction, which I found a pleasant surprise.

So, with that premise, I asked Pearson The Joss Whedon Question — that is, the question I would ask Whedon if ever I had a chance to interview him. (Whedon would probably lie, but I'd still ask him.) Here it is: Do you have close, ongoing, friendly, conversational relationships with any convinced, practicing, pedal-to-the-metal, Bible-believing Christians?

Pearson's reply was an instant, enthusiastic "Yes." He has "lots" of relationships with Christians, including friends who are "very, very evangelical." He himself is Roman Catholic, and recognizes the difference in perspectives; but he counts several Christians as "good friends," and respects them.

Pearson clearly is delighted with the end-product playing in theaters, "one hundred percent pleased" with where Proyas took his story. Pearson had to miss the movie premiere, and saw Knowing in a theater on opening day. Coming out of the movie, he was clearly tickled to hear all the discussions, all the audience debating and speculating about the meaning and significance of this or that aspect of the movie.

It has been interesting to note how polarizing the movie is, how diverse the reactions of the critics have been. We agreed that it's more than strange that so many lament the lack of "thoughtful" science fiction, in favor of violence and gore — and then when just such a movie comes out, they complain that it is too complex and "convoluted."

There is a designed ambiguity to the whole that is palpable but not frustrating. I would say that Knowing is like Sixth Sense, with a significant difference. As with Sixth Sense, the whole story can be taken in one of several ways. However, whereas Sixth Sense has an ending that frames and explains the whole, Knowing leaves that to the viewer. Plus, while Sixth Sense would only be a so-so story without that ending, Knowing tells an engrossing narrative in addition to provoking the questions it raises. But you, the viewer, provide the interpretive frame.

Ryne agreed with my suggestion that Knowing is something like a cinematical Rorshach test, in that what people "see" may or may not say much about the picture, but does say a lot about them.

I asked him if there was anything left over from his original screenplay that he wishes had made it to the movie? He say "Not really; I could not be more pleased" with the final product.

Before we move off to spoilier ground, I want to thank Ryne Pearson for taking the time to talk with us; it was a pleasure. Also, thanks to Tamara Brown, of Special Ops Media, for putting it together.

Spoilery

The short version is: I didn't get any of my specific what-does-this-mean questions answered. As I suspected, the ambiguity is designed and deliberate; it isn't a subtle (much less ham-fisted) way of saying ____.

For instance: were the beings at the end aliens, or angels? Someone asked asked screenwriter Juliet Snowden that question, and she answered, "I don't know — and if I did, I wouldn't tell!"

Pearson has loved the discussion and debate about all these aspects, and how spiritedly people are entering in. For instance, on the same question, one person insisted, "They can't be angels. Angels don't need space ships!"

And he was answered: "Yeah, but the kids aren't angels, and they do need something to move around in!"

I asked Pearson if he had himself supplied the various Biblical allusions, and Pearson said he hadn't. (I wonder which writer did, then.) Pearson had more general Biblical themes; and in his version, Nicolas Cage's character and his son are named Adam and Noah (in the movie it is John and Caleb, respectively).

In some ways, Ryne is noticing things as he watches along with us, which has to be a unique experience, for the creative father of the plot-seed. For instance, he hadn't noticed the van I mentioned with (I think) John 14:6 on it (someone else had told him), nor had his wife noticed the wings on the creatures at the end. Also, someone pointed out that when John "comes to," after his son is taken, everything is wet, as if he's been washed clean (baptized?). Like us, Pearson wants to see the movie again, to pick up on what he missed.

The scene in the movie he finds most moving is when Cage's character is reconciled to his pastor-father. When the pastor says, "This is not the end," and Cage replies, "I know," Pearson choked up.

An aside: this impressed me about Ryne Pearson. The element he's praising here is one he didn't create. So, in effect, he's extolling someone else's addition to his creation. A lot of bloated egos would have spent the interview griping and sniping about the foul scars some lesser light had left on his opus. There wasn't a whisper of that with Pearson.

Ryne did not sit down to write a "message" movie. The message and questions arise from the plot. The plot deals with the end of the world — and that naturally raises questions of "What does it all mean?" and "Is this all there is?"

People watch Knowing, and come out asking questions, speculating, debating.

Its creator, Ryne Pearson, couldn't be more pleased.

---

My thoughts. What do I make of a movie that is deliberately, designedly ambiguous, and that raises questions without providing answers?

1. The reason I can live with the ambiguities of the movie is precisely because I don't see it as preachy. In fact, I thought (and Pearson confirms) that it is very deliberately not preachy. A few lines here, a scene or two there, and it easily could have been, and I would have hated it — but at each point, they don't.
2. If the "message" of the movie were "Hey, nobody has answers, nobody can 'know'; what really matters is the questions," I'd have to resist the temptation to fire back a sharp, barnyard retort. But the movie does not preach that PoMo dribble.
   
3. "Knowing" whether that glass is filled with milk or poison matters. Bring it to your lips, you've made a decision. Make a bad one, you're dead. Worldviews are no different; faith is no different.
4. I think a savvy Christian could use this as a conversation-point. Here is a miserable man with a chaotic worldview — which is dead-wrong. He tries to seek help from a friend who also denies a determined future — who is also dead-wrong. Where does he end up? Back with his father, who does have a transcendent, objectively-based worldview and faith. That's not a conversation-starter? It is a classic Acts 17:23 situation, and we should be ready to make good use of it.
   
5. What's more, here are people (and, ultimately, a whole world) running, seeking trying — and they are all ultimately overwhelmed and destroyed by an event far beyond their control.
6. Meanwhile, here are helpless children, saved by a power from beyond them.
7. The framework the movie does not (and cannot) give is that our doom will not come with a flare of the sun's mindless heat, but with an explosion of God's holy and just wrath (2 Peter 3:7-13). Our problem is not a soulless universe before which we are helpless pawns, but an infinite-personal God before whom we are guilty rebels (Romans 1:18-32).
   
8. The answer the movie does not (and cannot) give is that we really are living on precisely the sort of edge Cage's character is when we meet him. He has no idea, but his doom is charging down a street that ends at his door. So it is with the world. "Repent," Jesus preached, "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17). It still is. As it was in the days of Noah (Pearson's original name for Caleb, the son who is taken), so it will be when God's open judgment falls on the world before the return of Christ (Matthew 24:36-44).
9. The solution that the movie does not (and cannot) give is that God has already acted to accomplish salvation and deliverance for "the chosen ones." God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on human nature just so that He could satisfy the law we had broken, and just so that He could fulfill the righteousness we'd defiled, and just so that He could receive and absorb the righteous wrath of God in our place and in our stead (Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
10. The certainty that the movie does not (and cannot) give is that there really is "something more." Jesus rose from the dead; He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). And so His perspective is that now "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). That is the "something more" awaiting every man and woman. We either live eternally in the joy and love of God; or we exist eternally under the wrath and judgment of God.
    
11. The "knowing" that the movie does not (and cannot) give is that eternal life is to be had only through faith in Jesus Christ, and in Him alone, by the free gift of God alone. He is "the way, the truth, and the life," and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). So "whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:12). But here's the good news:

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God
that you may know that you have eternal life"
(1 John 5:13)

Now, that's a truth worth "Knowing." (For more, see here.)

---

Oh, and... Ryne?

(c;

Hither and thither — 3/26/09

Surprise! This week's H&T is a day early, because I've something special planned for tomorrow. Special enough to want to avoid either post bumping the other. There! That's all you get. See, this is why you don't want to miss a day at this-'ere blog. And now, for this week's fun, frivolity, "Hmm"ing, and head-slapping:

• I would think that, at the top of any short-list of thankless tasks, one would find "defending Jar Jar Binks." But this guy tries, anyway.
• Peeps! Really. I mean it. Peeps. Like you've never seen them... with any luck, that is.
  
• Pastor Garry Weaver has a very chucklesome series of "Spot the Impostor" pictures.
  
• We've all heard what the MSM wants us to think about those evil thieves at AIG. One of them gives us his perspective — and (surprise!) it's a very different view.
• Oh and while we're in the neighborhood, don't forget to have your pet fill out his tax return. (H-T Susan.)
  
• Somehow, I missed this. Back in January, the Washington Post told us what was out, what was in. Towards the bottom (a valued lurker pointed out), we learn that Warren's Purpose-Driven Life is out, Denis Leary's (profane, offensive) Why We Suck is in. Oy.
• Need a good screen cleaner? Who doesn't? Here's one. (Thanks to anonymous reader.)
• Among the (relatively minor) things I'd like to live to see is the unseating of Senator ("Snarlin' ") Arlen Specter in favor of an actual conservative. The clueless pro-abort has failed at several crucial points in our history, and I don't forget. For instance, I don't forget his voting against Judge Robert Bork; I don't forget his citing "Scottish law" and voting "Not proven," for no rationally-defensible reason, when Clinton was impeached. And maybe, just maybe, I'll get my wish.
  
• Here is a brief debate on spanking, and whether it's effective. I think a few things. First, I doubt the opponent's claim of "hundreds." Second, I wonder about the correlation/causation issue. That is, if they're saying that kids who were spanked more often turn out to be bad-actors... which the chicken, which the egg? Were they spanked more because they were already bad actors, and did not take to heart the lessons of the spanking? After all, even the best discipline (like the best preaching) is not magic (Proverbs 13:1). Third, pragmatism. Today's study says it doesn't "work," so don't do it. Do we live by studies? Well, if you look at it a certain way, preaching doesn't "work." Witnessing doesn't "work." Loving your spouse doesn't "work." In fact, being a Christian doesn't "work." Unless what motivates you is faith in God's Word, and all-consuming concern for His glory. Then it "works" just fine.
• Over-contextualization Alert. 'Nuff said.

• As Obama/Dem Congress/MSM moves more and more into de facto control of American business, I'd be interested to see a good-faith liberal attempt to tell us how it differs from fascism and socialism. Because I don't see the difference in destination.
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll shows and details what a financial disaster the Obama budget is and would be. Dwarfing any Bush deficit, the Obama plan would threaten to bankrupt America. Yet the most inexperienced, unqualified, yet arrogant man ever to take the office pushes stubbornly ahead, insisting on such brilliant moves as cutting tax-credits for charitable giving. Brilliant! Not!
  
• Apparently not everyone is happy with Notre Dame inviting the most virulently anti-life president ever to speak at its commencement, and be honored (!) with an honorary law degree. Some of the students have spoken out, and spoken strongly: "we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. ...Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony."
• Our own Carol Jean "Wordled" the recent Obama yak-fest. Part one is what his teleprompter had to say; part two is what Obama said without the muse. See a contrast?
  
• Okay, now... THIS is just one of the scariest things I've seen in a while. Not funny, man! Not funny!!
  
• I want to shop here:

• Isn't "honest scammer" a contradiction in terms? Evidently not:
  
  
  
• Here's one from a dedicated geek:

• And then there's...
  

While Shepherds Watched Their... HUH?

You will never look at shepherds the same.

NOTE for the extremely easily-offended: there is a bovinian play on a slightly naughty (not one of Carlin's Seven) word at the end.

So, what phone should I get?

My dear wife, who is the financial brains of this enterprise, has determined that we need to move to AT&T. That part isn't up for discussion.

What is up to discussion is the titular question.

If I were (A) an important person who (B) had friends who called me frequently and (C) important dates because I was (D) in-demand, something like a BlackBerry would be readily justified. But none of those things is true to that degree.

I don't play phone-games; I don't ever want to use idle time that way. I'd rather put it to some sort of practical use. For instance, I'd love a phone that made it easy to do memos. I often am struck with an idea while I'm driving or walking. There's no convenient way to write a note. So I forget. If a phone had an easy way to record a memo, that'd be useful.

I rarely text, but sometimes do. Frank Turk (who is far too busy and important to frequent this blog or elevate its metas) has mad cell phone skills. He is able to text like a teenager (that's a compliment — to him, not to teenagers). But wait! There's more!

Once, when he and Phil and I were together, Frank used his phone to get the address and service times of a church we wanted to invade. It was amazing. (He was talking to someone named "Chloe." What was that about?)

That would be fun to do, but I don't know that I need to do it, as my life now is. But I did recently see this video (forget where) on using OliveTree Bible software on... I think it was an I-phone thingie. It was pretty impressive. (Hm... wonder if they need reviewers?)

So that would be cool, too.

All that to say this: what are your recommendations, opinions, news-flashes, tips, and otherwise-helpful-thoughts?

"Knowing" — movie review

Movie: Knowing
Length: 130 min
Rated: PG-13
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne, D.G. Maloney, Lara Robinson, Nadia Townsend, Alan Hopgood
Director: Alex Proyas
Producers: over a dozen people, including Alex Proyas
Screenplay: seven people, including Alex Proyas

Unspoilery

Knowing (released 3/20/09) stars Nicolas Cage, and no one else that I recognized. I think the casting director was told, "I don't care who they are, just make sure all the female actors have really sad faces — except the elderly teacher. She's going senile, so she can smile."

Happily, I like Cage as an actor, and have usually enjoyed his movies either passably (the National Treasure movies) or almost giddily (Raising Arizona, The Rock, World Trade Center, Con Air). So he was a draw to me, rather than a turn-off (i.e. starring Rufus Sewell and a cast of unknowns, or Bill Maher and a cast of unknowns).

In Knowing, however, Cage entertained me far less than usual. I think that is because his character, John Koestler, has withdrawn from life so completely that no point of connection is left. Koestler's wife died in a tragic accident, and it seems that most of Koestler died with her, leaving nothing but pain, anger and fear.

We share his pain as we watch him relate (or fail to relate) to his similarly somber, joyless son Caleb. Dad obviously loves his son, but all he shows him is pain and fear, and that from a distance. Neither father nor son smile much, nor laugh, joke, play — though they do both sign (Caleb has hearing problems) to each other that they will be together, forever.

This is a somber movie. It starts somberly in 1959, with sad-faced Lucinda Embry (played by Lara Robinson) portraying a girl who hears voices and is driven to write enigmatic numbers, as if by automatic writing. We feel that she will not have a happy life, and we're right. Then we join the unhappy Koestlers in 2009, and see how their unhappiness and little Lucinda's will join. We'll meet Lucinda's unhappy daughter, and her unhappy grandchild (same actress).

Sound like fun?

I wouldn't say "fun," but still I was glad to see it, and do recommend it — just know what you're going to see. This is a serious, thoughtful, complex piece of science fiction. It raises questions of determinism and the significance of choices we make. It doesn't hurry in unfolding its premise, and I think most of the negative critics simply grew impatient. But I'd very much enjoyed producer/director/cowriter Alex Proyas' earlier Dark City (1998; except for the unfortunate casting of Rufus Sewell in the lead), and was willing to stick with it. It was worth it.

What worked for me. The special effects were amazing. They weren't all over the place, but what was there was state of the art. There are three set-pieces in particular that were literally breath-taking to me. I want to re-see the movie (on DVD, probably) just to see if I saw what I really saw, to see whether some scenes were one-take continuous shots as I think they were.

Also, at a couple of places I had this dread that the movie was going to sink to boilerplate, kneejerk, de rigeur political correctness and Christianity-bashing. Wrong on both. It did neither.

In fact, arguably, the movie was remarkably Christianity-friendly. There is a bit of ambiguity here, which I'll address in the next section. But a passage from the Bible plays a significant part, a pastor plays a significant and sympathetic part, and a van with (I think - it's a brief view) John 14:6 is featured prominently and pointedly.

What didn't work for me. I had to analyze afterwards why I didn't come out happy and "Wow"-ing and wanting to see it again right away. There was so much to like about the movie, so why didn't it write itself on my favorite-movie list?

My conclusion is that it was Cage's character. Cage is a capable actor; I don't know whether a better actor (Ewan MacGregor?) could have done better with it. I think not. He was drawn very one-dimensionally. He should just have worn a T-shirt that said "I'm totally withdrawn from the world!!!" and gotten on with it. So, in a way, it worked — I felt no connection to him. I didn't care as I should have, and so the finale didn't have the emotional impact it could have. Particularly as a father, I found his distance off-putting. (Also, in one rant, Cage sounded exactly like his character in the National Treasure movies, and that yanked me out of the moment.)

Out of four stars, I'd award three.

Why is it PG-13? I recall one bad word, the tone is intense, and there are some catastrophes with individual impact shown.

Don't read the next part if you haven't seen the movie.

Spoilery

Here are some thoughts, themes, questions.

The movie really messes around with some Biblical themes, and does so in (as I take it) a respectful way. Prophetic warnings are imparted by alien (angelic?) beings. Elect are chosen. Only they hear and respond to the call. At the final moment, the angels go to the four corners of the earth and catch up the elect before final judgment falls.


So, there are overt or implied allusions to Ezekiel 1, Matthew 24:31, and John 14:6. The estranged son reconciles himself to his pastor-father, affirms a new faith in the afterlife....

Now, there is no preached Gospel, though the Gospel is present in the van with (if I read it right) John 14:6. There's no extended talk about God, no overt backdrop that the disaster is judgment for sin. But (unlike the vastly-inferior Day the Earth Stood Still) there's no preachy nonsense about global warming.

Are they aliens, or angels? Clearly the movie suggests that they are angels. The human guises are dropped, replaced by awesome, glowing beings with suggestions of wings. Are they in space-crafts, or angelic conveyances like the chariots we read of? Are the writers purveying "Chariots of the Gods" Bible-rewriting nonsense, or is this a Bible-affirming discussion piece?

In other words, are they saying "What the Bible calls 'angels' are really aliens," or "What people call 'aliens' are really angels"? The movie is light-handed and designedly enigmatic enough to leave this open.

UPDATE: read a BibChr interview with screenwriter Ryne Pearson here.

Hither and thither — 3/20/09

The world's not getting any less weird. Here's some proof, and more:

• Ladies and gentlemen, a moment of silence for... Spacebat. Reader Laura Kelleher brought to my attention the saga of the noble mammal.
• Staying with animals — whoa. This lady is serious about cats. I mean serious. On that site, you can find lengthy, detailed explorations of feline communications ("cat chat"), emotions, and body language.
  
• Here's some fun for our homeschoolers (and anyone else), thanks to Gil Sebenste. It's a Geography Knowledge test, very nicely done — and when I say "fun" I mean "high potential for humiliation." I knew less-than-diddly about geography prior to homeschooling our two oldest. Since then, I know continents and stuff! Whee!
• Thanks to reader Carol Jean from a meta, we have a "copy" of the letter the Obama White House is using to shop around for a new home church for The One (courtesy of the spoofers at Sacred Sandwich).
• Great to know, isn't it, that President Obama has terrorism in perspective?
• That being the case, I'm sure Obama is going to get right on this: terrorist training camps in the US. (Thanks to a reader who prefers to remain anonymous.)
• Another thing Obama has is a teleprompter — and now the teleprompter has a blog! (H-t Fred Butler.)

• And Boy Oh Boy, Does He Need That Teleprompter! I'm sorry, but my gosh what a tone-deaf idiot the man can be. "Can't we all?" you reply. Yes, yes indeed. But the higher the office, the greater the responsibility to curb that tongue (cf. principle of James 3:1-5). Maybe he'll send the Special Olympians a stack of DVDs or something.

• Perhaps its that The One believes those children should have been aborted. You know, so as not to "punish" their parents.
• It does provide another telling point of contrast between Obama and Palin.
• Oh, and on the DVDs with which Obama insulted our allies in Great Britain. On top of everything else, they are completely useless to him, being the wrong kind for British players. The incompetence is staggering. Foolish, foolish voters.
  
• Graphic proof that your suspicions about movie popcorn are correct.
• Well... I guess it was nice of him to warn everyone.
• Making another bold entry to The History of Dumb Ideas, the SciFi channel is changing its name to "SyFy." Yeah, and maybe I'll change the blog-name to "Bibbi-Chai." That should do it.
• Isn't that nice? Justin Taylor finds liveblogging noteworthy. Hear, hear. Justin has one of the finest Christian blogs on the internet, a real gift to us all, and I profit immensely from it.
• And again, but with a completely different referent, I say Hear! Hear! (Well, or, actually, I'd rather not.) Logos Christian Academy has a similar policy.
• Sometimes it's fun to poke the haters. So: here's an article claiming that Internet Explorer 8 (just released) "leapfrogs" Firefox 3. Have fun! Bring popcorn! I haven't tried it yet. And my work is still on — no, I'm not kidding — IE6. So I use Firefox, except where it doesn't work. (It's also on Office 2003, but I am perfectly happy about that. There's nothing about 2007 that I like.)
  
• Touching story of a mother's love. Rachel Crossland was forced to choose between possible death for herself and certain death for her babies. She chose the former — and got life for both.
• Just to give you a Whoa! Brr-r-r! moment: do you know this guy?

Sure you do.

• Weird but True department: Spider Man? Most of you know the Brown Recluse spider. It's one of those bad ones, and by "bad" I mean that its bite can kill. But not this guy. "This guy" is David Blancarte, who was a paraplegic... until a Brown Recluse spider bit him. Now he's walking.
• Well... not so much. He walked some. Then he got arrested. Bummer.
• Tell me what I mean when I say "poor people." For extra credit, tell my why that's not a compassionate society.
  
• Sometimes, you just have to go for the "Awwww!" This is one of those times!

• And....

But first, a few boring words about Hither and Thither

Howdy, boys 'n' girls.

A bit later I plan to toss up this week's H&T for your reading pleasure. I thought about adding this to it, but then decided it should be a standalone.

History. Last October, when Pyro "went dark" for a month, I took on the task of literally upping my production here by a factor of... let's see... about 7. I did a lot of news and opinion pieces and eclectic whatnot leading up to the election.

Somewhere towards the middle I started a frequent feature I called Don't Miss These. It was a collection of various essays, articles, and opinion pieces I thought noteworthy.

Well, as all that frenzied activity wound down, the election took place and Pyro lit back up, I ratcheted my production down to roughly 3X what it had been, and have kept it there since.

One poor soul (sorry, I forget who), at one point, said, "You've got to at least keep up the 'Don't Miss These' on a weekly basis."

Telling someone like me that there's something you'd like more of is like tossing a match on a pile of dried twigs, and so the weekly Hither and Thither was born.

What it is and what I do. It's just the Biblical Christianity blog at its most eclectic. It's things that have struck me as interesting, funny, and/or weird throughout the week. They don't merit their own complete posts, but they're worth a look anyway.

And that's it.

Reader contributions. Delightfully, some readers like the feature so much that they send me their own suggestions. I love that. Keep it up. Let me just make these requests, and end:

Tell me if you want to be in hiding. I strongly believe in crediting sources; it's almost a mania with me. It's even Bibley. So I think you should be thanked publicly for your contribution.

Either two or three times I've done that and gotten horrified emails saying no no no, don't do that.

So know this: I will thank you, unless you tell me not to. I won't if you say don't, that's fine. But I think it's churlish just to grab and use and get the glory. It's been done to me, and I don't like it.

Don't take it personally or cry to me if I don't use your suggestion. Please. Really. I mean it. Sometimes it's just that I'm too busy to consider everything, or I forget, or it just doesn't light me up as it lit you up. But it's never personal, and you should never take insult by it — and please don't try to make me feel bad. I think that I feel bad about enough as it is; this is just a fun thing we do together, and let's keep it that way.

Fair enough?

That having been said, you should see this week's H&T within an hour or two, tops.


Okay, okay, wake up!

Treat upcoming for my British readers: Handel's Messiah

Wish I were there!

It's awfully hard to find a live performance of Messiah in my Godforsaken wasteland. I have been to three singalongs in the last 20 years, and one live performance. (I attended another live performance, but it was in the Glendale area; wonderful bass singer, actually a former schoolmate.)

I enjoyed them all. The local live performance was... memorable. I don't know how to describe it in print. First, the alto was so wonderfully good she brought chills and tears. Splendid, simply splendid.

What was odd was the way the chorus handled the long-held notes. If you know the oratorio, you know what I mean. For instance, when they sing "For unto us a child is born," that last word is drawn out and played over a number of notes — "Bo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o...." etc.

Well, instead of doing that, this chorus would sing "Bo-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da..." etc.

I don't doubt it was easier to sing, but the effect, if you're accustomed to the other way, was... a bit startling.

Still, I enjoyed the presentation.

Logos March Madness

If you're a user of Logos Bible software (reviewed here), you'll be interested in this tournament/sale. All of the listed books will be at least 25% off; vote for books to be advanced to even higher discounts, up to 75% off.

Should I be concerned, happy, or cracking up?

This is the second such email I've gotten from this sender:

I told my dear wife, and she thought somebody was having fun with my email address. I don't know... is it the first step towards my new goal (see item #2 here)?

It's funny, either way.

Homosexual unions: discussion of a proposal

Two Pepperdine professors from opposite sides of Proposition 8 argue that the state should have no more involvement in marriage than it does in bar mitzvah's or baptisms. Which is to say, none. Instead, the state should "give gay [sic] and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union - anything, really, other than marriage." If they want, the happy couple (triplet? sextuplet?) could then go to a church (or other religious institution) and have a ceremony.

The "civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples."

I've heard some Christians float ideas like this, as a way to slice the Gordian knot. I can see the appeal; marriage was invented by God and should be sacred, should be guarded and kept holy. the state doesn't do that. The church should.

But here are some of the problems, as I see them:

1. The homosexual lobby is not only concerned with robbing rights and standing that should not accrue to their particular perversion; their goal is to force societal approval of that perversion. The label matters to them.



2. On the other side are those who are "against not just gay [sic] marriage but also gay [sic] couples - and especially against government sanctioning of those relationships, no matter what they are called."
3. If the government does give false sanction to this particular perversion, then private citizens will be forced to approve of it as well. Private business owners will be forced to recognize first that perversion as equivalent to marriage, and then whatever else is queued up after it.
4. Though homosexual activists swear up and down they have no intention of targeting churches — show of hands: how many believe them? Oh, I'm surprised, I do actually see a hand or two. So now, remember the death threats and raging specifically against Mormons for daring to support Proposition 8. How many hands now? Right.

Now here's the part where you chime in with your thoughts.

Or...

...you could be doing this!

"Dog Days of Summer" — movie review

This is a direct-to-DVD movie [— or not; IMDB gives the release date as 2007 and lists no external reviews, but one commenter claims to have seen it in a theater] that was offered me to review. It will be released on April 21, 2009, and has a web site through which those who wish to may see a trailer, do some investigation, or place advance orders.

But should they? Should you?

I'll be candid. I'm fairly selective in what I choose to review, particularly when it comes to books. First, I have limited time, and don't like spending it on unprofitable or irritating things if I've a choice. Second, as a rule (with few exceptions), I just don't like writing negative reviews. Particularly, I hate to have to be critical of products whose authors or artists (or producers or publishers) have provided them to me in the hopes I'd say a kind word. One day, God willing, I'll hope someone has something positive to say about a book with my name on it, and I know how discouraging and hurtful a thoughtless or carelessly negative review would be.

I accepted this, then, in the hopes that I could enjoy it, show it to my family, give it a glowing review. After all, it is "Dove Family Approved" for ages twelve and over. And it won "Best First Feature" at the 2008 Sabaoth Film Festival in Milan, Italy. It starred accomplished actor Will Patton, whose work I've appreciated; had glowing user-reviews at IMDB ("good!" — "inspiring!"), was supposed to have a Twilight Zone / coming-of-age vibe. So, I had a positive attitude.

So: Did I like it? Do I recommend it?

Regrettably No, and No, respectively.

Spoiler-light

More positively, I can say that the camera-work had a professional feel and a good "eye." The musical scoring was evocative and atmospheric, with a tone of dread and anticipation. Patton was indeed good, enigmatic and eery. The young actors who played the two boys at the center of the story were natural and fun to watch; in fact, all the actors were more than adequate. Only R. Keith Harris, who played "Pastor Salem," had a forced feeling to his performance that didn't ring quite true; similarly, some of the opening narration felt melodramatic and had an amateurish edge to it.
Negatively, I think the movie tries to be a lot of things, and largely fails. It does try to combine Twilight Zone with coming-of-age movies such as Stand by Me and The Sandlot and all, with books and movies critical of small town life and small town people. That is, it throws those elements together in a bowl and stirs vigorously. But they don't really blend, and what comes out of the oven is nothing you should eat.

The single best comment came from my 13yo Josiah, who watched it with me. (Valerie bailed after about twenty minutes, which should tell you something; but I hung in there for you, Dear Reader!) With one sudden development at the movie's end, we both said "What?!" — and Josiah chuckled, "Wow. That was totally random!" The same could be said for much of the movie.

Basically, the plot sets up a nice town with nice people, and then kills and/or corrupts them... or exposes them as corrupt, or whatever defilement you'd like to choose. There is no redemptive message. Well, no coherent redemptive message that I understood. Unless "Embrace your inner child" is supposed to be a redemptive message.

Actually, that probably was supposed to be the redemptive message: embrace your inner child, with its capacity for hope and faith. But everything before that had torn down any basis for vertical hope and faith, and offered no clear pointer to vertical hope and faith.

I left the movie thankful that I had not made it the weekly family-movie for Burger Night, as I had considered doing on the basis of the trailer. Something gave me pause, and I'm glad I "listened." If I'd done it, and my dear wife hadn't clanged me in the head with a cast-iron skillet, I'd have done it to myself.

Now, be warned. The next section is...

Spoiler-heavy

Movie starts out with a guy walking into a ruined town, and commences some effectively-done flashbacks, with accompanying ominous narration. We begin to meet the cast of characters in this delightful old town. In comes creepy Eli Cottonmouth (?!; Will Patton) in his black truck, proclaiming it a beautiful town. You know you're in trouble now; and boy, howdy, are you.

See those two delightful little boys? Don't you love them? Yessir. One of them expresses his thought that drowning would be a terrible way to die. And later, drown he does, and terrible it is. You watch him drown, little tiny boy, struggling for his life, and drowning. It's horrible, and there is no happy turn to it. His friend watches, too, inexplicably uninvolved. Then, too late, he jumps in (he can swim, he just chose not to) and searches for his friend frantically and fruitlessly. He's heartbroken and shattered. We're not too happy, either.

Wow! That's some family fun! But wait, there's more!

See that older brother? Loves his brother, plays baseball, likes this girl: really a fine young man. Except for where he beats an old man to mush with his bat. Hey! Family fun!

And that girl. What a sweet young thing. Has a crush on the boy. Reads to a blind man. Aww. Except then the blind man goes cranky and nuts on her (we're never sure why), they have an ugly scene, and then stomps off bitterly, and then turns up missing.

"Missing"? That's what the Bible-preaching pastor reports. She's moved on. But then we find she was pregnant. And we suspect the big, old-man-batting brother. But it wasn't him. It was — can you guess? — the pastor! Yes, of course, the pastor got her pregnant. Wow, who could have seen that coming? But wait! There's more! He also killed her and hid her body! That's right! Because that's what pastors always do!

(Remember Phillips' Law of Movie Clergy: if they really believe their religious claptrap, they're hypocrites; if they're worth anything, they're losing their faith.)

Oh, and the blind guy? He killed his wife! And let everyone blame the old guy who the nice big brother puréed with his bat!

Say it with me. "Wow. That was totally random." (Maybe I'll just let Josiah do the movie reviews.)

I lay in bed afterwards, trying to get to sleep, asking myself "In what possible way is this a Christian movie, or a movie that should appeal to Christians and get Dove approval?" I may have hit on the answer.

I think the movie is "redemptive" in the same way Flannery O'Connor stories are "redemptive." Which is to say, Not.

I know I brand myself as a literary Flintstone when I say that, but I'm sticking with it. I'd heard and heard about what a deep, wonderful Christian author O'Connor was, so I read a stack-full of her stories. First, I learned she wasn't Christian, she was Roman Catholic. Second, those stories were the most joyless, loveless, graceless, hopeless piles of darkness I can recall reading. I wanted a shower. They made Stephen King look like the gaily-skipping, daisy-flinging Joel Osteen of horror writers.

And so here's a story set in the South, clumsily "exposing" a bunch of nice people as horrors and hypocrites, and... The End! Have a nice night, folks! Thanks for coming!

But I have this little theory that, in order for anything to be "redemptive," there actually has to be some, you know, redemption.

Which this movie doesn't, in any coherent way that I got.

In sum: sorry.

Wanted to like it, wanted to recommend it; didn't, and can't.

You want a redemptive message?

Here it is.

Truth of the matter is, we're actually worse than the movie says. Whether we mistreat others or not (and we do), we are all rebels against God and His law, by nature and by choice. Our fate is worse than exposure here on earth as hypocrites. Our fate is exposure before God as justly-condemned criminals, traitors, and would-be God-killers.

But God, in His mercy, has provided a way of redemption, but only one way. His way. God the Son became man, to do what no man ever did: to fulfill God's righteous demands from the heart, from conception to death. And then God made the One who had never been tainted by sin in any way to be sin, to represent sin, on the Cross. And He judged Him for that sin, in the stead of guilty sinners.

When Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, He signalled that God the Father had accepted His sacrifice in full. So now, anyone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and trusts in Him alone for salvation, is redeemed, saved, changed, transformed, adopted, grasped, guided, and guaranteed eternal glory in the presence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So there is hope. But hope is not found in embracing our inner child. It is found in embracing God's eternal Child, the divine Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now that is my idea of redemptive. It has bad news, true. But it points just as clearly to the Good News.

Which this movie, I must report, doesn't.