The World is Messed Up.

Reading A Continent for the Taking and watching Food,inc in one week breeds extreme nihilism.

On the bright side, I've discovered the delicacy that is non-fat, plain, Greek yogurt with honey. And honey is actually found in nature so its not made from corn and it won't rot my innards! Not that some honey brands don't inject every bee with corn particles that somehow genetically alter them to make bee hives that have an addictive chemical in them. Don't worry, that's not really in Food, inc.

Cop-out blog

Yesterday I visited the North Shore Unitarian Church, made spiced peach bran muffins and watched the Oscars while studying. Today I made carrots and parsley, whole wheat pizza dough, one three spinach cheese pizza (STILL low-fat), and marinated pork chops. I also aced my midterm and took a nap. The pizza dough required me to use yeast for the first time which blew my mind. Since its supposed to be 'active' I really wanted to look down at the little granules and see them squirming. Don't worry, they didn't. I'd love to blog more about all of this but I have not the time or desire. I have to read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe for my Global Christian class. Ironically, I think this was one of the books that I was supposed to read in high school but never did.

Vampires Suck

Oh my goodness, I was pleasantly surprised by Jason Freidburg and Aaron Seltzer's Vampires Suck (2010). As a B movie and a spoof-film, the acting was amazing! I've seen all of the Twighlight films and I felt that Jenna Proske (Becca Crane) did such an amazing and hysterical job of imitating Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan)! She had this haltered stammering speech, constantly pulling her hair behind her ear, avoiding eye contact, and biting her lip. Sometimes the jokes are taken too far, or there is unnecessary blood and gore, but altogether its a film worth watching if you love the Twighlight films (and/or hate them). The stupid or poorly done parts of the film are so worth the hysterical moments. Much of the content is in direct allusion to the conent in the first two Twilight films so if you haven't seen the originals...there's really no point in watching this film.

The girl who plays Iris Sullen in the film also does an UNCANNY impression of Alice Cullen. I wish I could tell you my favorite parts, but what makes this film so hysterical is that it takes what you expect and completely turns it around in ways that you can't predict.

The King's Speech

I finally got to see The King's Speech a few nights ago and it was wonderful! I enjoyed placing some of my favorite cast members that just always seem to pop up in good British films (Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Derek Jacobi, Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce, Timothy Spall, Anthony Andrews). Also that kid who played Hama in LOTR: TTT plays Lionel Logue's eldest son who kind of pops up in the end. I looked him up on IMDB and found that he has kids and a grandson; and he's Phillippa Boyens son. What? Ironically his birthday is also only 12 days after mine...which means that he's 12 days younger than me and has a grandchild...?

Okay so aside from being distracted by Calum Gittens (Logue's eldest son/Hama; also what kind of name is Calum Gittens?) I loved the slow flow of the film, the cinematography and the acting. Firth and Rush have this wonderfully antagonistic relationship; each one challenges the other so much that they have no other choice but to respect one another. Firth and Bonham Carter also display a really unique and accepting bond of support throughout the film. As mentioned earlier the cinematography is beautiful - two favorite sets are Logue's office and Westminster Abbey. Logue's office is delightfully shabby and the mosaic of subdued colors and overabundance of space just make it have a quirky and unknowable tone. Westminster abbey is, of course, wonderful and the way they used the HUGE arched ceilings really corresponded with the overwhelming feelings that both Firth and Logue are meant to be having at that point in the film. Lastly, the film is slow but somehow it wasn't boring. You listen to Firth stutter and there are tons of these painful silences and none of it was done to the point of exasperation - I still wanted to keep watching! His final speech was the most halting and slow speech I've ever heard but I was captured by it - between the cuts to his family, listeners around England, and his faithful elocutionist, there was just a wealth of detail to take in during his drawn out, and halted monologue.

Excursus: How is it that Guy Pearce makes characters SO pretentious and unlikable?

Coraline

I wasn’t really able to complete many leisure activities this Christmas break. But I did manage to finish Coraline, a 162 page children’s novel by Neil Gaiman. It was entirely creepy and delightful. It reminded me of a mix between the film Princess Mononoke and the Bathilda Bagshot chapter in Harry Potter 7! If those things mean anything to you, you’re probably retching right now. Aspects of the narrative were somewhat cliché, and even reminiscent of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; however, I think that Gaiman does a good job of using those clichés to create a familiar framework on which he builds something new and fantastical (both in the literal and figurative sense). In some ways, it’s the direct opposite of TLTW&TW. Entertain your philosophical side and think deeply about that statement if you read it. Coraline was made into a major motion picture in 2009. On reading the novel, I was hesitant to see the film because I felt like it would simply be too creepy. After researching the film and watching the trailer…I think I’ll need to see it. Enjoy the trailer here.

Read this book if: you like old folklore and fairytales, you like Neil Gaiman’s work, you wanted more of Bathilda Bagshot’s corps being controlled my Nagini (gag), you loved Princess Mononoke, you like splendidly frightening stories with hopeful, moralizing, redemptive endings.

The book says it’s for ages 8 and up and the Washington Post Book World said the novel was, “Inventive, scary, thrilling, and finally affirmative.” I think that sentence sums it up well.

Twilightikus Suckus

Robert Pattinson vs. Daniel Radcliffe

The 50 Greatest Trailers of All Time

Check out this list. I think a lot of times trailers are better than the actual movies, so this is like the jackpot.

The 50 Greatest Trailers of All Time

Shared via AddThis

Enchanting

Come on, feel the Groningen! from MUZIEKTELEVISIE.NL on Vimeo.

One Day Like This from MUZIEKTELEVISIE.NL on Vimeo.

we went to the lake /// we were on a boat /// the dog swam /// everything was drenched in sunshine /// it was a day to remember /// one day like this ///

Validation

Praise and Thanks

Just wanted to praise/thank God for these 5 things that increased my joy this week. If you had to do with these 6 things...you'll know:

1) Chocolate chip pancakes

2) Hillsong



3) Pandora

4) Encouragement cards with lamb drawings








5) Watching movies with Marv(e).

*Boade Shunner

This weekend I got to watch two films and do some more artwork (among other things)! Delight of delights!! I thought I’d do two short/lame film reviews. Always lame, I don’t claim that they’re anything else. Well, maybe they’re sometimes comical. Will contain spoilers.

Bottle Shock (2008)
This was a based-on-a-true-story story about wine. I know nothing about wine. There was more to the plot than just wine, but really it was about wine. No, really it was about victory for the underdog. Country, Californian folk try their hand at making Chardonnay and they end up beating the French in a taste-testing contest. It was a cute story, solely about wine. I’m kidding, I’m kidding. It was also about coming of age, learning ambition, never giving up, it had some interesting anecdotes about racism, love, father/son relationships, broken homes, and the beauty of simplicity and nature. And wine. Alan Rickman is great in it and Chris Pine has some gnarly blond hair (Seriously what’s with that? It looks fake.). Also, the love interest/intern (that’s original…) is kind of a ho (very original) but in a understated way that is unclear and does not further the plot. Strange…was that part of the true story? Best part of the movie: California scenery and a focus on the simple. It made me want to live in a barn and work in a field all day, while admiring the country-side and thanking God for earth, life, food, water, and air.

Blade Runner (1982)
I’m so glad I finally saw this one! It’s a must-see for a ‘film person’ (whatever that means). And, wow, it was so weird. It was a mix between a horror film, Star Wars, and Alien. The plot was really, really slow which was unexpected as I understood it to be an action film. The cinematography was stunning, although creepy. The sound editing was also amazing (there was, however, this weird Kenny G-like saxophone ditty going on in some of the scenes…I really could have done without that). And Daryl Hannah. You haven’t really seen her act unless you’ve seen this film. I’m honestly still confused about the ending, I don’t get the unicorn stuff. Any ideas? I’ll research it later. As of now, I’d like to finish this blog before my lunch break is over. Best part of the movie: Harrison Ford drawing the audience into the story by looking helpless and vulnerable when he’s in a fight (why is he so good at this!?). And….Rutger Hauer howling at the moon (or something…) in a black, spandex-capri-thong-thing at the end. What? Whatever it was, it worked.

*Boade Shunner = Bottle Shock and Blade Runner mixed together. Yes.

Why Are 'Good' Films Bad?

Do you think Jurassic Park is a meaningful film and would you recommend it based on its meaningfulness? That was a questions I recently posed after a screening of Jurassic Park. Theologian, writer and professor, Robert K. Johnston argues:

“…Film criticism has a different goal than simply the negative or positive evaluation of a film. It seeks to initiate a process of inquiry and reflection in order to better understand a movie. It does this by commenting on a movie’s style and story, its structure and theme. Moreover, film criticism explores the connection a movie has both to its creators and to its audiences. The best film criticism seeks comprehensively to ask, “How is it that the movie is (or is not) a meaningful experience?

If theologians, both amateur and professional, are to avoid reading into movies what is not there, they must learn something of the craft of viewing and reflecting, they must develop their critical skills. The church has been involved in film criticism throughout the past century and has even addressed some of its distinct aspects. Richard Blake argues that the church itself initiated film criticism: ‘In fact, it would not be much of an exaggeration to claim that the churches actually invented film criticism, as opposed to the reviewing carried by the daily papers, in the first year of the century.’ Churches were concerned about the social impact (public morality) of film. They also saw the catechetical (Christian education) function that movies could provide through their interpretation of life. Here is film criticism in its infancy” (Johnston, Reel Spirituality125-126).

Well I kind of agree with Johnston, but I think that the Church is very, very imbalanced when it comes to film criticism. I think that the Church severely lacks an understanding of the technical aspects of film, so much so that the Church’s criticism is not taken seriously by those outside of the Church. People in the Church have the knowledge and desire to critic films on an ideological level, but I find that it is rarely able to critic a film’s technical/artistic merit. Perhaps I don’t know enough about what the Church says about film, but the little that I hear is quite cliché and while it is theologically intelligent, it is artistically and technically negligent. I think this lack of knowledge becomes even more apparent when Christians try to make blatantly Christian films. Why are most Christian films just bad!? They may have good morals, happy endings, and noble narratives…but most times the acting, editing, script, and cinematography is just down right shoddy.

One cannot be a critic who solely focuses on meaningfulness; such a critical lens would be fatally flawed. I think the Church as a film critic and filmmaker severely displays this fault. The solution? Learn about the technical and artistic aspects of film. A really practical application? Watch a film and then ONLY critique its technical/artistic merit – don’t even address meaningfulness, its difficult.

And I know that not all ‘good’ films bad, pardon my hyperbole. And by ‘good’ I mean blatantly Christian…by bad I mean lacking technical savvy. The End.

My Life In Ruins

Since I'm 1/2 Greek its basically a requirement that I like Nia Vardolos and her films. I'm pretty sure everyone in my big, fat, Greek family will be seeing this one in theaters and raving about it thereafter. Its produced by Tom Hanks, just like the last one. I think it'll be cute.

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump

***this video contains spoilers!

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump - watch more funny videos

Lame Reviews

This holiday season I’ve had the privilege of seeing nine movies, five of which were in the theater (thanks to my awesome parents, who paid for four of those five. At $9.50 apiece I definitely wouldn’t have been able to afford such an extravagant lifestyle on my own). I thought I’d do a little review in alphabetical order. I’m going to try not to really spoil any film, but you’ll know if they have sad or happy endings, just a warning.

Bollywood/Hollywood (2002): This romantic comedy defines the term ‘B movie’. My mom happens to love some of the Bollywood films, but she generally likes the more traditional ones with Indian dancing, subtitles, and Aishwarya Rai. Bollywood/Hollywood, however, didn’t have much dancing, no subtitles, and no Aishwarya. All in all, it was a let down but it does make for some fantastic mockery and it did have a good Redeeming Love type ending. See this film if you: umm…have an obsession with B movies, enjoy ethnic humor, and can’t get enough romantic comedy regardless of the quality.




Four Christmases (2008): This was your quintessential holiday comedy. It made fun of every family stereotype and had an all-star cast including appearances by country singers Dwight Yoakam and Tim McGraw and Broadway star Kristen Chenoweth. Weird. It was fun to watch. Reese Witherspoon was delightful (as always for me). Vince Vaughn, however, is getting annoying. He seemed the same in this film as the last two I’ve seen with him (The Breakup and Wedding Crashers) and I think I’m over his mediocre acting. With more awkward sexual humor than I would have liked it definitely won’t be a family holiday classic. See this film if you: don’t mind crass sexual humor, love Reese, are wanting to see a fun holiday film with more adult content than Elf or White Christmas.

Marley and Me (2008): As a contender to become a family holiday classic, Marley and Me was cute, touching, and fun. But watch out, it can be a tearjerker if you’re a sensitive soul. Owen Wilson was really great. He tends to be the same person in every movie and I can’t decide if this movie fit his static acting the best, or if he really did take it up a notch. I am interested in reading the book now. And kudos to Hollywood for making a film that stars a monogamous heterosexual couple that struggles but works to save their marriage. See this film if you: are in the mood for a heartwarming, familial, bittersweet, based-on-a-true-story story, oh…and if you like any film in which there is any glimpse of Eric Dane (Sloan from Grey’s Anatomy).


Swing Time (1936): Good dancing, good singing, cute plot but I have to say that I pretty much despised this movie because Fred Astaire performs in blackface during one of the dance numbers. Honestly, if it hadn’t been for the blackface, I would be keener on praising this film and would recommend it to old film lovers. Astaire’s character kind of got on my nerves and the ending left my dad and I a little lost for words…it was anticlimactic and we just sort of stared at the screen while all the characters in the film were laughing hysterically…See this film if you: love Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, enjoy old movies with dancing and singing, the mere thought of the fact that people really did perform in blackface doesn’t offend all of your sensibilities.


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008): I loved it. I’ve already made my sentiments known at the end of my last post. See this film if you: like detailed stories, like old people, liked Forest Gump and Big Fish and won’t be offended by a movie that seems similar, don’t mind very, very long movies, love Brad Pitt but think he’s a mediocre actor and want to see him prove you wrong, liked F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story on which this film is based.





The Jane Austin Book Club (2007): Really enjoyable! This film had the potential to be supremely liberal and feminist and while I still found it to be empowering to women and liberal, ethics were not totally forgotten. I know, I know feminism and liberalism DO NOT necessitate a relativist view of ethics…but a lot of times, in film, the former precedes the latter. However, the overall message of the film was mostly ethical and redeeming and pleasant to watch. I now want to read all of Austin’s novels and wouldn’t mind breeding Rhodesian Ridgebacks for a living. See this film if you: don’t mind homosexuality in films, love Jane Austen, experience delight at the mere thought of a book club, want to see redeemed endings.



The Pirates of Dark Water (1991 TV): This was a classic for my sister and I when we were growing up. It is the first and last installment of a television series that was never finished; quite unfortunate because the main character, Ren, is supposed to find the Thirteen Treasures of Rule and he’s only found three by the time the series experienced its demise. This seems funny now…but as a little girl I was never quite the same when I discovered that I would not see Ren’s quest come to completion. Traumatizing. See this if you: don’t see it…it’s a tease with no possibility of satisfactory closure.


Valkyrie (2008): Well done! I generally dislike Tom Cruise. A lot. I have NO IDEA HOW but he pulled off being the only American actor in an all-star British cast in a film where everyone was playing a German. What!? And not once was I distracted by his American accent. Actually the all-star cast was more problematic because every person had been in some other movie so I found my mind wondering trying to think of the films in which each actor had been. There were actors from all sorts of films including but not limited to: Love Actually, Pride and Prejudice, Pirates of the Caribbean, Across the Universe, Yes Man, The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Girl With a Pearl Earring, History Boys, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Ace Ventura When Nature Calls. Understand why I was so distracted by the all-star cast? See this if you: don’t mind horribly sad endings, like war movies, are a history buff and want to either criticize or praise the movie based on its historical prowess/clumsiness, just want to see all the famous faces.


Yes Man (2008): Boo. Major let down. I love Jim Carrey but it was just sub-par. This movie couldn’t decide if it was American Pie or Liar Liar. Some of the jokes were just completely wrong and entirely disconcerting, Jim seemed about 20 years older than all of the supporting actors including his love interest, and the plot was never very engaging or funny. From a philosophical standpoint I suppose it had a good message of hope, excitement and adventure in life…but the philosophy of Yes Man didn’t shine through the distracting filmic downfalls. The film might be worth it just for Bradley Cooper (Will Tippin in Alias) and this amazing scene (featuring Rhys Darby from Flight of the Conchords…he was incredible). See this if you: love Jim Carrey, Bradley Cooper, Rhys Darby, or just want to see a sub-par comedy with some inexcusable jokes.

My Not So Secret Shame (and some other morsels)

What is my not so secret shame, you ask? It is the fact that I’ve never read any of The Lord of the Rings books. I’ve read the Hobbit, I’m in love with all the movies, and I grew up with die-hard fans, I’ve even listened to part of the FOTR on tape. I know, I know…go ahead...spite me with your venomous insults. All of these disclaimers don’t really make up for the fact that I haven’t read the books. This is my last disclaimer: I’ve read Lord of The Rings and Philosophy (One Book to Rule them All). This book is part of a slew of other titles in the Popular Culture and Philosophy series published by Open Court Books. I love them! It doesn’t make up for me not reading the book but if you’re reading this blog you can probably get past the hatred burning within or you don’t even care.

Enough of that, let’s talk about the book, LOTR and Phil that is…

It was so good! I’m now obsessed with Tom Bombadil and Samwise Gamgee. I liked them already from listening to FOTR on tape and from the movies. But both of them are such great examples of all that Middle Earth should be. Out of the 16 amazing chapters, my favorites were:

Chapter 3 - "My Precious": Tolkien's Fetishized Ring by Alison Milbank

Chapter 4 - Tolkien's Six Keys to Happiness by Gregory Bassham

Chapter 7 - Uberhobbits: Tolkien, Nietzsche, and the Will to Power by Douglas A. Blount

Chapter 16 - Happy Endings and Religious Hope: The Lord of the Rings as an Epic Fairy Tale by John Davenport

Thanks to friends and family who fuel my love for popular culture and philosophy by buying me the books, I now own Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts, LOTR and Phil, and The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy: The Lion, The Witch, and The Worldview. I'm currently reading Chronicles and Phil and I'm loving every word. After reading HP and Phil and LOTR and Phil I've realized that these books have a conservative slant, which is probably part of why I like them so much. I will admit, though, I would like to read some essays by people who agree with Nietzsche and Buddhism just to see what they have to say and to analyze their arguments on my own terms. Perhaps, at a later date, I'll blog about some meaty philosophy topic. For now I'll just keep to review and give you a quote (not even from a fav chapter):

"If the appropriate response to evil is courageous endurance and hopeful patience, the fitting response to unanticipated good fortune is wonder, joy, and gratitude. In one of the greatest events of 'chance' in the story, Aragorn arrives at the Pelennor Fields to support the forces of Gondor just at the moment when their fortunes look most bleak. As Aragorn's side is filled with 'wonder' and 'great joy' the hosts of Mordor grow despondent, realizing that the 'tides of fate [have] turned against them' (RK, p.122). The passage illustrates the way providence works to fortify the good just at the moment when they are most in need. It also shows that the natural response to such astonishing and unanticipated good fortune is not to calculate the odds of the event or demand a proof that what happened was more than chance. Instead, the appropriate response is wonder, joy, and thankfulness. If the reader [or viewer] feels these emotions during and especially at the end of The Lord of the Rings, then the dramatist has done his job" (LOTR and Phil, Providence and Dramatic Unity 176, Thomas Hibbs).

...And now I'm going to shamelessly change topics and talk about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which I had the pleasure of viewing yesterday. I was impressed. It was a spectacular story, with spectacular acting, and spectacular special effects. I didn't get bored even though it was a very slow film with a run time of 159 minutes (although my sister did get bored...so beware if you bore easily). I'm going to say that it was basically the love child of Forest Gump and Big Fish with more of an epic flavor. With a PG-13 rating the sexual content was bearable and the 'brief war violence, language and smoking' wasn't bothersome at all. Go see it.

Lastly, can we please talk about how catchy David Archuleta's new singles are??? He didn't win American Idol, but he's winning my fandom.

Quantum* of Solace, et al.

*a quantum (plural: quanta)

I saw Quantum of Solace the night it came out and I have to admit that I was disappointed. It was the first overt sequel in the Bond series and it let me down. I didn't feel invested in the plot or characters and it seemed that the writing was not nearly as creative as it had been in Casino Royale (and there is no reason for this, since both films have the same writers). In CR Bond was just getting used to his 007 life (as CR was meant to take place before any of the previously released films) and there was something really endearing, interesting, engaging about seeing him feel his way through the whole secret agent gig (i.e. he doesn't know how he likes his martini's yet). He also fell in love and was betrayed - this is definitely a first for Bond films and its the most vulnerable we've seen him. He also gets tortured, naked..and I won't go further but this is the most helpless we've seen him in his encounters with crooks. All these things added together equal the audience being emotionally involved. Audience members winced when he got tortured, they wanted to see him get out of there! They felt sorry for him when his heart was broken after being betrayed by his lover. These key ingredients for an incredibly engaging film were totally lacking in QOS. I didn't really care what happened to Bond...and when I started to feel sorry for him it didn't last long. So the action was still great, Judi Dench was still perfect, the main antagonist was seriously creeptacular but the film as a whole was lackluster.

In the same weekend, I watched part of Disney's new Tinker Bell movie. The writing was possibly better than QOS. Tinker Bell defies gender stereotypes, has some sweet cast members, and the music is pretty great (thanks to Loreena McKennitt...actually the previous link doesn't fully exemplify the brilliant Celtic music throughout the film). It won a Heartland Truly Moving Picture award. And Jesse McCartney does one of the voices (haha!).

Lastly, this weekend I watched the entire third Season of The Office on DVD. That's right. It was highly enjoyable. I feel as though I can watch this season with historical knowledge behind each character's...character. Now Meredith's sex escapades don't seem quite so egregious. And what is with that bearded Amish man that always runs very fast? Do I need more history to understand him?

p.s. I've just decided that blogs where people review films are kind of lame because everyone and their mom does it...but I'm still going to post it. How can I make it not lame?

p.p.s I don't think I like these new colors either.

p.p.p.s I'm having great difficulty formatting this blog because of all the pictures. Anger and toil.

Okay, Okay

So I'm a pretty bad blogger because, well...I never blog. But I'm going to try to reform my ways starting...soon. Announcing my plans to blog will hopefully give me a sense of accountability to my readers (do I even have readers??). Also, here's a list of possible topics that I've been intellectually kneading:

--The Nature of Originality

--The Rhetoric of Architecture and the Holiness of God (drawing on The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul...and other texts I'm sure)

--The Positive and Negative Effects of Ethics/Morals Portrayed in 'Low-Culture' Film (I have two case study ideas: The House Bunny and Aquamarine)

--Evidence of God in Creation (and how/why people struggle to label it as such - perhaps a case study of John Mayer lyrics is in order here)

--A Study of Mercy and Grace as Gifts, Not Rights (hoping to draw on films to glean cultural clues concerning how people see mercy and grace as something to which they are entitled. Right now I'm thinking of Mamma Mia and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants)

--I realize that all of these impending discussions of films have been concerned with 'chick flicks' (probably because its more fun to talk about quirky or low-culture films than it is to discuss blockbuster films that EVERYONE loves) so I'd like to write something about a male-gendered film and The Dark Knight seems to be the obvious choice here - but if I do that, then I'm going to write about what I didn't like about it!

And that is all for now. More to come (hopefully).

We Need More Than Love

After taking a hard, bitter bite of life, a young English bloke from Liverpool named Jude, realizes that he must fight for his dreams and desires; but Jude chooses an uncommon weapon: love. The Jude I’m describing is the protagonist in the 2007 film ‘Across the Universe’. Directed by Julie Taymor (also known for directing the Broadway production of ‘The Lion King’ – among other works), this film is incredibly artistic, politically charged, well acted, and pays homage to the Beatles by using their songs to bring the entire score to life. Just to give you an idea of what the film entails, you can view the trailer HERE.

Now, regardless of whether or not you have seen, liked, or even heard of the film, I think I can make a statement that is irrefutable. This film puts precedence on love. All of the characters in the film have their hearts broken at one time or another, loved ones die, fights occur, and people are rejected and end up jaded. But (beware – I’m about to spoil the ending for you…but its nothing you couldn’t have predicted) in the end, Jude chases after Lucy, his true love, and serenades her with the song ‘All You Need Is Love’ by the Beatles. Jude’s friends and confidants who have gone through much tumult over the course of the film join him in the song, and they all seem to come to the understanding that despite war, death, infidelity, anger, and corruption – all they need is LOVE. Here are the lyrics that they sing:

All You Need Is Love
The Beatles

Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

What a great moral, right? How can you go wrong with this type of sentiment? Well, I think that there is something gravely wrong about putting this much precedence on love. You might argue against me using scripture: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1John 4:8). But this film says that love is the answer which is a severe perversion of the statement ‘God is love.’ Love is not the answer, God is the answer - and from God springs love! The Beatles are making a fatal error in their lyrics. Without God you can’t save anything, you can’t know anything, you can’t learn. You could argue that non-Christians do these types of things all the time, but ALL of their ability is due to God’s common grace. John F. McArthur (minister, theologian, and author) describes it well:

“Common grace is a term theologians use to describe the goodness of God to all mankind universally. Common grace restrains sin and the effects of sin on the human race. Common grace is what keeps humanity from descending into the morass of evil that we would see if the full expression of our fallen nature were allowed to have free reign.

Scripture teaches that we are totally depraved—tainted with sin in every aspect of our being (Rom. 3:10–18). People who doubt this doctrine often ask, “How can people who are supposedly totally depraved enjoy beauty, have a sense of right and wrong, know the pangs of a wounded conscience, or produce great works of art and literature? Aren’t these accomplishments of humanity proof that the human race is essentially good? Don’t these things testify to the basic goodness of human nature?”

And the answer is no. Human nature is utterly corrupt. “There is none righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10). “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9). Unregenerate men and women are “dead in … trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). All people are by nature “foolish … disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending [their lives] in malice” (Titus 3:3). This is true of all alike, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).”
(http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/10/08/the-universal-grace-of-god/)

Thus, we don’t need love. We need God. ‘Across the Universe’ and the song ‘All You Need is Love’ are really worshiping love and C.S. Lewis, in his book The Four Loves, says that idolizing love is a dangerous mistake. He says that love becomes a demon the moment it becomes a god.

“Every human love, at its height, has a tendency to claim for itself a divine authority. It’s voice tends to sound as if it were the will of God Himself. It tells us not to count the cost, it demands of us a total commitment, it attempts to over-ride all other claims and insinuates that any action which is sincerely done “for love’s sake” is thereby lawful and even meritorious” (7).

So is Across the Universe simply a heresy that deserves to be disregarded and even destroyed? I don’t think so. You see, the message of the film is fatally flawed, but that does not mean it can’t produce good. I know that God is sovereign. He uses sin to benefit his glory! I don’t think we should assume even for a second that this film cannot inspire someone to search for the root of love which is God! The film contains a hint of truth and that is more than God needs to glorify himself. Lewis says in Mere Christianity that, “As in arithmetic – there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer to being right than others” (35). And since God is love, this film is incredibly close to reaching the correct answer! That is encouraging! In a recent sermon I heard, the pastor quoted Jonathan Edwards who encourages us to “study reality as a manifestation of God’s glory.” So search for God in films (or music, art, etc), reveal heresy and lies, and know that GOD WILL BE GLORIFIED.

300: More than Blood, Glory, and Misrepresentations of History

((a recent academic work for class))

A battalion of men, shirtless but cloaked in red, stand at the ready; their burgeoning muscles twitching with anticipation as their masked enemy approaches. One soldier says to his king, “They look thirsty,” and the king answers with a loud growl, “Well let’s give them something to drink!” The men slam their round shields into position and create a formidable wall of bronze-tipped spears specifically arranged to tear the opponent to pieces (300 and Bradford 71). King Leonidas of Sparta, as played by actor Gerard Butler in the 2006 film 300, uttered many loud growls and killed many men. He had a beautiful wife, a son, men in his service, and he even confronted King Xerxes himself. But this data has been collected from a modern Hollywood film, and Hollywood has become an industry known for exaggerating, fabricating, and lying. As a result, should film viewers discredit Hollywood’s portrayals of history? Are all films merely concerned with entertainment at the expense of education? Some might say yes, but author, professor, and critic Robert Toplin would most certainly disagree. He says,

“Cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events. The messages filmmakers communicate, directly and subtly, resonate with audiences in powerful ways, often shaping their ideas about the past’s influence on the present. Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind. As such, it deserves much more detailed and probing analysis than it has received to date” (Toplin 7).

Here, Toplin argues that historical films are ripe for critical analysis. The film 300, based on the battle of Thermopylae, can be seen as entertainment at its best. At first glance, Hollywood seems to have taken yet another historical event, re-worked it, and produced a dazzling spectacle worthy of ridicule from professional historians. But, by using Toplin’s critical lens as well as historical facts about the actual battle and the zeitgeist of 480 B.C., it becomes clear that 300 has more to offer than 116 minutes of blood, glory, and misinterpretation of history. By changing the chronology of certain events and adding fictional and personal storylines, the film 300 may, in fact, do a better job of portraying the emotion and spirit of the battle of Thermopylae than most textbooks and historians, and that can certainly be considered education.
While reading textbooks and researching the battle, discontinuities between the cinematic history portrayed in 300 and factual history most certainly can be found. Within the first twenty minutes of the film, there is a scene that is taken out of the correct historical chronology of events. The scene opens with King Leonidas teaching his son the ways of battle. Leonidas is interrupted: a Persian messenger has arrived with a request from Xerxes. Leonidas asks, “…now, what message do you bring?” The Persian, with a bow, says, “Earth and water.” The Persian continues:

“If you value your lives over your complete annihilation…listen carefully, Leonidas. Xerxes conquers and controls everything he rests his eyes upon. He leads an army so massive, it shakes the ground with its march. So vast, it drinks the rivers dry. All the God-King Xerxes requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water…a token of Sparta’s submission to the will of Xerxes” (300).

At this, King Leonidas’ rage is kindled. A few more words are exchanged and Leonidas brandishes his sword at the Persian who exclaims that Leonidas’ actions are mere madness. Leonidas shouts, “Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!” and he kicks the Persian into a vast well containing plenty of earth and water.
Interestingly enough, historian Ernle Bradford, proves that this emotionally charged and violent scene is somewhat historically accurate. Bradford says that Xerxes sent messengers to all of the Greek states asking for formal tokens of surrender – “gifts of earth and water from their land” (Bradford 31). Many of the states, especially the islands, did as the messengers requested, they sent their gifts of surrender. But, according to Herodotus, Athens and Sparta were the only two states from which heralds were not dispatched because, “On previous occasion, ten years before, when Darius had sent similar heralds, the Athenians were said to have cast them into ‘The Pit’ – the place for condemned criminals – and the Spartans to have thrown them down a well” (Bradford 31). Thus, from Bradford’s historical account, the scene in 300 is proven to be historically accurate, yet chronologically out of order. The Spartans may have thrown a Persian messenger down a well, but if they did, they would have done it at least ten years before the time period 300 is depicting.
So, why would the director or screenwriter choose to take this event (that of the Spartans throwing the messenger into the well) and place it in the wrong time? In short, motion pictures have a daunting task: they must portray a few events that are tightly focused so as to create excitement and interest (Toplin 17). This event expresses some important sentiments of the Persians and the Spartans during the 480’s while still being a succinct scene. Showing flashbacks or simply showing Sparta ten years prior to the 480 B.C. would have taken cinematic time, and it could have disrupted the narrative flow. Having Leonidas throw the Persian into the well gives the viewer great insight into zeitgeist of both the Spartans and the Persians of that time while still functioning well cinematically.
As exemplified in the scene above, the Spartans were an inward-looking warrior race. They were proud and individualist. The discipline of the Spartan warrior was famous and Leonidas seems to fit this description perfectly (Bradford 60). Also, the Persian messenger’s description of Xerxes’ army is not far from Bradford’s description. He says, “The nation and the empire that Xerxes was now leading to the invasion of Europe represented a concentration of military and political power such as the ancient world had never known before” (40). Thus, 300, instead of being criticized for using two historical events (the Persian thrown into the well and the events surrounding the battle of Thermopylae) in a collapsed time frame, should be applauded for using such a pertinent illustration of the people of that era. Granted, if a student were viewing this film with the sole hope of coming away with a correct and thorough chronology of Thermopylae, the film would fall short, but such expectations are irrelevant because “dramatic film cannot deliver a comprehensive assessment of its subject” (Toplin 17); instead, dramatic film offers an interpretation that focuses more on the emotional, personal, and cultural climate of the era.
The film 300 presents the emotional, personal, and cultural climate of the era in more ways than through scene with the Persian messenger. The character Ephialtes is found in both history books and in this film, but his filmic version illustrates some political and social views of the era. In the film, Ephialtes is a tragically deformed man. He has a short stature, protruding eyeballs, a hunchback, large teeth, and pocked and lumpy skin. Ephialtes enters the plot while the king is speaking to one of his soldiers. The king asks, “Have the men found any route through the hills to our back?” The soldiers do not know of any such route but Ephialtes emerges out of some shadows suggesting, “There is such a route, good King. Just past that western ridge. It’s an old goat path. The Persians could use it to outflank us” (300). Ephialtes then continues speaking to the king; he asks the king to let him fight in battle, but seeing Ephialtes’ deformities, Leonidas knows that Ephialtes will be unable to hold his shield at the height that is crucial for the protection of not only himself but also his comrades. Ephialtes leaves in a fury and goes to Xerxes with his knowledge of the mountain pass. Xerxes then offers Ephialtes wealth, women, and “every happiness you can imagine” in return for guidance through the mountain pass where the Persians can enter behind the Spartans (300). But how much of this account in fabricated by Hollywood?
It cannot be proven, but historians suggest that the Persians were truly unaware of the secret mountain pass until a Greek named Ephialtes led them to it (Hignett 139). However, concerning the pass, Bradford writes,

“It was of course impossible that Leonidas should not know about this for, even if as a man from the Peloponese he had no personal knowledge of it, his Phokian allies would have been the first to tell him of its existence. The indictment of the Greek Ephialtes by ancient and subsequent modern historians, as the Judas who betrayed the Spartans and the Greek cause is over-severe. Indeed, one or two other names were traditionally given as the name of the guide who led the Persians over the mountain. The fact is that even if it was a man called Ephialtes, which one may accept, there were others who could have shown the Persians the way. Most shepherds, local farmers, or mountain men could have done so. The great secret about Thermopylae and the ‘selling of the pass’ is that there was no secret” (117).

So, Bradford puts the entire narrative of betrayal to shame. The film certainly takes the ‘selling of the pass’ seriously and Ephialtes receives all the blame. Hollywood seems to have added quite a few elements to the situation. Both Ephialtes’ deformity and his meetings with Leonidas and Xerxes have been fabricated; but Hollywood made some intelligent fabrications because these elements lead to a better understanding of the times.
Why is it important that the filmic Ephialtes was deformed? This divulges knowledge about both the Spartan and the Persian military. Ephialtes says to King Leonidas, “I am Ephialtes, born of Sparta. My mother’s love led my parents to flee lest I be discarded” (300). Ephialtes is referring to the fact that the Spartan iron code of rules permitted elders or seniors of the city to examine children shortly after birth. If the child was fit and strong they were kept, but if the child was weak or sickly, “they had it exposed or thrown over a cliff” (Bradford 61). The Spartan soldiers were born and raised to be formidable, and Ephialtes’ discussion with Leonidas, fictional though it may be, helps viewers experience this through listening and watching. In contrast, Xerxes’ army was more of a melting pot of man and arms. It makes sense that Ephialtes would be permitted to fight in Xerxes army because it was much less devoted to a specific fighting method. His armies, “culled from all quarters of the empire, [and] embraced every form of weapon from the almost Neolithic weapons of the Ethiopians to the comparatively sophisticated arms and armour of the Persian Immortals” (Bradford 67 & 68). Ephialtes could not raise his shield high enough for the Spartan phalanx, but Xerxes’ accepts him and that is truly something that could have happened in the spirit of the battle.
This film presents ‘the spirit of the battle’ very well. In just this short analysis of two scenes in addition to some of the script and plot knowledge, as well as historical background, 300 proves to make some very educational points about Thermopylae and the spirit of that era. Spartan resistance and individualism, Xerxes’ methods of requiring submission, the vastness and diversity of Xerxes’ army, and Spartan warrior codes are just a few of the many historical details that this film presents. However, the film presents these ideas at the expense of other details. As noted earlier, some of the scenes are fictional and events are not in chronological order, but this does not discredit the valuable historical elements that the film portrays. Viewers must remember that cinema time and space is very finite. In order to get the maximum filmic capacity out of a historical event, directors and screenwriters must pick and choose what should be included, changed, and emphasized. Historical films may not be perfectly accurate, objective, and inclusive, but they do offer a historical experience that differs from reading a book. Films give viewers emotional and personal insight and they attempt to express feelings or zeitgeists rather than facts, and both are important and necessary for a well-rounded understanding of history.