Why I love films: The Preamble

I am a cinephile. I enjoy greatly watching movies/films. I am also a Christian, a quasi-neo-Fundamentalist (I haven't yet determined exactly what that means). Are those consistent positions? Are you able to legitimately be both? According to a series of articles (Parts One, Two, and Three, so far) by a Fundamentalist named Kevin Bauder, you cannot. His notes that prominent theologians "from Tertullian to Tozer" have been adamantly opposed to the theater/cinema. Having not read all of those writers, I will have to take his word for it. He posits the idea that theater/film is unable to carry the message of Christ. He challenges his readers to "convince [him] that theater as a medium is legitimate for Christians." Apparently, his contention is that theater/cinema is not legitimate for Christians. He gives, though, very specific parameters for this debate.

If you are going to convince me, however, here is the first thing that you are going to have to do. You must show me that you have understood how theater communicates. You must know and respond to the aesthetic conversation. Once you have done that, then we will be in a position to get down to the really important considerations.

I will not attempt to completely answer his queries just yet. As I peruse some articles on Wikipedia dealing with aesthetics and art, I see that I am undeniably unqualified to meaningfully contribute to this discussion. However, I would like to make some preliminary "gut" observations.
I was not able to find in his article substantial support for his thesis. He does state that theater/cinema is primarily Dionysian as opposed to Apollonian. "Dionysian" is a term that comes from the Greek god Dionysus, or Bacchus, who is "the god of wine and of an orgiastic religion celebrating the power and fertility of nature." The terms means "of an ecstatic, orgiastic, or irrational nature; frenzied or undisciplined." Thus, theater primarily stimulates our carnal, visceral passions. "Apollonian" comes from the Greek god Apollo, "the god of prophecy, music, medicine, and poetry." The term means "characterized by clarity, harmony, and restraint." Literature, music, and poetry speak primarily to the intellect and reason. Bauder's premise seems to be that the message of Christ is primarily an intellectual one, and, thusly, one that must be carried by an intellectual medium. I would agree with this. I do not, however, agree with his position that film is an entirely unintellectual medium. He states in Part Three, "A competent director does not want his audience to think. He wants his audience to feel, and to feel at some primeval and instinctual level." This is not entirely true. Most serious directors want their audiences to think. Most serious directors want to get convey a specific message. Many directors will use emotions to get this message across, as do many preachers. Some directors will avoid these emotional/visceral tactics and aim straight at the mind. Directors such as Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, and Allen are more interested in philosophical ideas. Though some of their films are enjoyable at face value, they contain some intense philosophical depth.
Another issue I have with Bauder is his premise that some mediums, namely theater/film, can be inherently flawed. I understand that any medium can be used for carnal purposes. Music, painting, sculpture, photography, and literature can all be used in non-God-honoring ways. Yet I cannot accept that a medium can be non-God-honoring in itself. A medium is a means of communication. It is amoral. There are not good mediums and evil mediums. The morality of a medium depends on the message. It seems very constrictive to say that only certain mediums are appropriate conveyors of God's truth.
Allow me to now lay out my views on cinema, and why I love it. I see film as having two main aspects, the cinematic and the thematic. The cinematic includes the plot, the dialog, the cinematography, the sound, the acting--all the technical/production aspects of the film. These are the things most people see when they see a film. This is the primary reason why most people watch films, for these are the things that easily entertain us. The thematic includes the main theme and philosophy of the film. In most films, the cinematic conveys the thematic. For me, both of these are important. I do not like films that lack in cinematic value. I enjoy a good plot, witty dialog, beautiful cinematography, and good acting as much as any one else. Films that lack these values are not worth my time. However, films that contain only these values are also not worth my time. Popcorn or escapists films may look neat and may provide simple entertainment, but ultimately waste my time, as I walk away with nothing. The thematic is the more important aspect. I want to see a film that has something to say, whether or not I agree with it. I like films that deal with significant and universal themes. I like films that challenge my aesthetic sense, and cause me to think intently about what they are saying. I like films that take a while to digest. Most people, and many times myself, are interested in film because most films think for us. Television is as popular as it is because it does everything for us. This is why TV and film can be so dangerous. We let our intellectual guard down and simply ingest what we are fed. We can probably get something meaningful out of any film if we are willing to bring along our intellect. Some films will challenge us in that their is nothing in it to challenge us. It takes all our intellectual power to squeeze some significant point from the film. For me, film can be endlessly entertaining, and I have yet to see how to be entertained is unhealthy, spiritually speaking. Yet, film can also be endlessly intellectually invigorating. That is why I love films.

The Hero and the Anti-Hero

The other day I saw the film Cool Hand Luke. For those who do not know, it is about Lucas Jackson. He is a criminal that spends most of the film attempting to get off a chain-gang. I enjoyed this film. It had a well written screenplay. The dialog was witty. The actors all did a fine a job. Paul Newman was tremendous as the titular character. This was as good of a performance as in The Sting and The Hustler. This film is noted as one of the first films to introduce the "anti-hero." An anti-hero is a person who is not a good person, usually a criminal, but a person who people admire and support. Normally, this anti-hero's antagonist is the "system" or the "establishment." We cheer for him because he fights against the establishment. Another famous example of the anti-hero can be found in One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest. In this film, Jack Nicholson plays Randle McMurphy. He gets sent to a mental hospital from a chain-gang. Some of the doctors think he purposely acted crazy so he could get out of working. He dedicates his time in the hospital to liberating the "patients" from the unyielding clutches of the Draconian Nurse Ratchet. This is another great film. Nicholson's performance is one of the best ever. This film received 5 Oscar's, and probably could have received more. It is well-written, well-directed, and well-acted. It ,like CHL, is a highly subversive film. Both of these films are about a man in jail (and deservedly sol) who refuses to be beaten by the system. In both of these films, the establishment is depicted as cruel and unsympathetic, so that the anti-hero, the quintessential individual, must constantly fight against it so that others can have the freedom they so desparately deserve. There are many more modern films that attempt to define what a hero is. Is he a man, like the ones above, that fights for individual freedom? Is he man, like John Wayne, who is clearly on the side of truth and justice? What does it mean to be a hero? Recent war movies like Saving Private Ryan and Flags of Our Fathers debunk many of the notions we have of war heroes. These are not men that went out to accomplish some grandiose noble task. These were boys, in most cases, that did what they could to keep themselves and their buddies alive. They weren't fighting for America or democracy. They were fighting so that they so see another day. Is a hero inherently a hero, or is a hero a hero because others consider him a hero?
Joe Carter from The Evangelical Outpost has an interesting article entitled, "The Fountainhead of Bedford Falls: Comparing George Bailey and Howard Roark." Many people have not heard of Ayn Rand or The Fountainhead. That is fine--Joe does a good job of explaining them both. He also does fine work in comparing two types of heroes--the George Bailey paradigm, who fights for others in spite of himself, and the Howard Roark paradigm, who fights for himself in spite of others. I think that "Luke" and "Randle" fit into the second category. They fight for the individual. Ironically, though, they destroy the individual in the process. In our modern thought, one of the greatest virtues is individualism, and, consequently, one of the greatest vices is the establishment, which we all know seeks to destroy the individual. In nearly 99% of modern film and TV and books (though I don't read modern books), the hero is almost always the rebel. He is the cop that has to turn in his badge and do things "his way" in order to save the world. He is the astronaut that shirks his superior's commands and saves the green planet himself. I find it difficult to find a modern example of a man that puts himself and his thoughts aside for the good of others. It is so rare to find a Rick Blaine in modern culture. It would do us well to think about heroism, and what defines a true hero. It would do us well to model our lives after true heroes.

powered by performancing firefox

Thinking about God.

I stumbled upon the blog, Helm's Deep, today while perusing the internet. I found this post/paper to very interesting, though it is some challenging reading. I have wanted to study Warfield's writings, as he was a major theologian.
A major problem with many Evangelicals, particularly "Fundamentalist" Evangelicals, is that they don't think much about what they don't think about (to paraphrase from Inherit the Wind). They also don't think much about what they do think about. They think and speak and preach often on God, but they don't think and speak and preach much about what they think about God, and about some of the deeper principles of theology. They take too many of their thoughts about God for granted. They don' take too much time to think if what they think about God is Scripturally and logically viable. For so many Evangelicals, they have replace philosophy with tradition. They don't have to think for themselves, because someone else has thought for them. I think it would do them well to think more.

Technical stuff

Don't mind this.
Technorati Profile

Cognitive behavior therapy

"You can change your behavior by changing your thinking."
That is the underlying principle of Cognitive Behavior Therapy, a burgeoning craze in today's society. It has been a craze for some years now, though I have only recently come in contact with it. CBT is the twin sister of Robert Schuller's "Health, Wealth, and Prosperity" teaching, and the estranged second-cousin of transcendental meditation and other Eastern "Mind-over-matter" philosophies. There have been studies that show CBT is successful in that it helps people overcome various emotional disorders. At the youth treatment facility where I worked, CBT is the primary pedagogical tool they use to help troubled and delinquent youth make better decisions. The curriculum they use is called "Thinking for a Change". The opening statement of this post is the main emphasis of the course. As I worked at this youth treatment facility (a.k.a. detention center), I noticed several aspects of CBT that seemed to be extremely erroneous and problematic.
The first problem is with the word "change." What does it mean to change? According to TheFreeDictionary.com, change can mean:

To cause to be different
To exchange for or replace with another, usually of the same kind or category
To become different or undergo alteration
To undergo transformation or transition

Whichever definition you use, the word intimates two different objects, or states--an old one, and a new one. In the context of CBT, a person changes from one type of behavior to another. Why would a person feel the need to change? Unfortunately for many CBT-ites, the answer is a bit ambiguous. In most cases, the reason is that the old behavior was not productive/beneficial. It proved to be unsatisfactory for the person. The behavior did not match societal norms. For the kids with whom I worked, their old behavior landed them in jail. Unless there is a standard, it is difficult to establish why the old behavior needs to be discarded. Many alcoholics and addicts do not see anything detrimental about their lifestyle, which is what makes them alcoholics and addicts. The fact that their behavior harms themselves is meaningless. We live in a society where the individual is exalted beyond measure. Every man should do what is right in his own eyes. If a person thinks it is right to harm their own body, then so be it. So many times at work I would ask a kid to stop doing something. So many time their answer would be, "Why? It is not hurting anyone." The only ground we have, therefor, is that it harms others--their family, their friends, their neighbors. Yet if we are individuals, then why should we care what our behavior does to others. Shouldn't we do only what feels good to us? The other side of the issue is, to what do we change our behavior? We have enough trouble identifying what behaviors are unacceptable. How are we ever to determine what is acceptable? I suppose we must simply poll the average American as to what behavior they find to be proper. We are going to run into problems with that, however. Some people think incest and polygamy is proper. What happens if the majority of people accept that type of behavior? In order for someone to change, they need to identify both what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. In today's relative climate, that is nearly impossible to do.
Another problem is the emphasis on feelings and belief. Part of the process of CBT is to identify the feelings and beliefs that affect our decisions. I know as well as anyone that it does make a difference what you believe. However, the emphasis here is more on past events. A person may "believe" that drugs help them calm down and stay focused, because in the past drugs helped them calm down and stay focused. A girl may "believe" that the only way to be loved is to be sexual, for, in the past, when she was sexual she received attention that she accepted as love. These believes, which might properly be called "emotional baggage," has nothing to do with what we should be doing. If there is a proper way to act, then we ought to act that way regardless of everything else. It shouldn't matter what we have experienced in the past. The issue becomes the decision making process rather than the decision itself. This results, possibly unintentionally, in people making excuses. "I act this way because my stepfather never loved me." "I have to act tough to overcome my insecurity." "I chose alcohol because of . . . whatever." What is right to do is right to do no matter whether we want to do it or not, no matter whether it is easy to do it or not. (I must apologize, for I have fallen into a trap. I used the word "right." I briefly forgot that there is no right or wrong, there is only acceptable and unacceptable. Allow me to continue.) Though feelings and "beliefs" have a role in the decisions we make, they shouldn't. When we focus on past experiences, it becomes easy to forget our present situation, which is to do what we are supposed to do.
Finally, CBT rightly identifies the problem as being a thinking error. We have an inaccurate perspective that needs to be altered. This, however, brings us back to the issue of what is an accurate and what is an inaccurate perspective. We have already covered that. So we will go a bit further/farther. Can we truly change our thinking? Is it possible to alter our perspective? As a Christian, I understand that the answer is firmly, "No." The problem is our thinking. Furthermore, the problem with our thinking is our Adamic nature. Our Adamic nature is utterly corrupted. Thus, our thinking will always be utterly corrupted. We are not like a computer with a virus. We cannot simply extract the faulty program and be cured. The whole system is faulty. When you plug 2 + 2 and should get 4, we are getting Q. Nothing that we can do can fix our faulty nature. We can move from one specific line of bad thinking to another specific line of bad thinking, but we can never move to a line of good thinking. We are Ezekiel's pot that is marred in the Master's hand (Note: not "by" the Master's hand). We must be remade in the image of the Master. That is what Christ has done for us on Calvary. Our old nature has been rendered incompatible. We have a new nature in Christ. Trying to fix our old nature is like trying to fix a PC--it cannot be done. We need a new nature (possibly a Mac). The problem with fixing ourselves is that ourselves is the problem. This last point is an unabashed Christian one. However, even outside a Biblical perspective, CBT has several fundamental errors that render it ultimately ineffective.

Revamped

Completely revamped.

New blog

I have created a new blog. Check it out.