We absorb heaps and heaps of things each day. We watch, we listen, we read. Books, films, television shows, newspaper articles, poems, that little thing called art. God’s creativity breathes and is so evident in His world…so I thought maybe it might be good to review such things here. Culture is so much a part of us that to ignore it would be foolish, and yet to lap it up, irresponsible. I admittedly always lean towards these extremes, but I hope to not do that, but to be discerning, yet also ready to be marveled, to enjoy but also to be prudent.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Noah: ambitiously creative and relevant but not to be taken as truth
Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, Noah (2014), has caused a bit of stir…just a bit. The film is inspired by (rather than based on) the story of Noah, found in the Bible (for the story, check out: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-9&version=NIV. It’ll only take you 6 minutes to read…which is what it took me!). I say ‘inspired by’ because Aronofsky has very clearly stated that this is his interpretation of the story of Noah. He saw the biblical account as a starting point (however you might see this) for his feature length film, and as such, I feel that in my opinion, should not be watched with the intention of wanting to see the biblical account come to life. If one does watch it with this expectation, you will be sorely disappointed.
The film, from a cinematography point of view, is quite incredible. Viewers get a sense of the vast barrenness, the fallen nature, of the world…it is clearly a harsh place to live. You feel the frailty of human life and its insignificance. I think in this sense Aronofsky presents a world that Christians would perhaps appreciate in accordance with the opening of the beginning of the story of Noah: “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” (Genesis 6:5) The depravity of men is both graphic and compelling. Survival of the fittest, stubborn trust in one’s own abilities, twisting the Creator’s responsibility given to man to look after the creation, selfish ambition and desire is the way of human life. As a viewer, I think, we would feel the weight of Genesis 6:6. We would desire justice and see the logical conclusion that a radical change needs to take place for the creation to thrive. A friend of mine, who is not a Christian, said to me that she felt the weight of human sin from watching the film. If nothing else, Aronofsky presents here a true portrayal of our depravity.
At the same time, however, the line of Seth, in Noah, is glorified in a way that separates him from common man. Throughout the film Noah is a stoic representation of justice. He willingly follows through with the Creator’s vision (more on this later) of a world cleansed of sinful man, to begin again. Aronofsky portrays Noah as the God-like figure of the film. He drives the story and, though more emotional viewers might disagree, upholds his integrity. He’s a man on a mission and no one can stop him. Even in moments where we might question his sanity, we do not doubt his integrity. Without giving away too much, there is a point in the film where Noah has to make a decision that morally seems horrific to us, but in the larger picture of his mission, he blindly sees as the only option. His decision seems to suggest we human will is good. In this sense, Noah’s righteousness seems to be derived from himself. Throughout the film, Noah is told by a family member that the Creator chose him for a reason. This reason is ambiguous until it is confirmed at the end that it is because of his inherent goodness and ability to choose what is good. One is left wondering about the relevance of the Creator.
I think if one is to make criticisms, this would be the biggest. “The Creator”, or God, is portrayed throughout as aloof, distant, uncaring, and vague. Noah receives ambiguous visions in dreams of what he is to do, but ultimately the weight is on his shoulders. There is no sense that the Creator really is the creator! He is quite uninterested in the creation itself and Noah seems to be the one driving the vision of seeing the end of humanity’s depravity and the beginning of a new world. We do not see anything of the character of this Creator. It is interesting how He is portrayed visually – in the clouds. The characters in the film often look to the clouds for interpretation of events and guidance. Its unpredictability and fluidity seems to suggest that the Creator is just not dependable, but always shifting. Naturally, one feels unsatisfied with Noah’s unquestioning trust in the vision. Why trust in a creator who is not dependable? Even with the provision of trees for the building of the ark in a very miraculous way, there is no sign that anything the Creator reveals suggests action that is right or wrong on Noah’s part. Even at a point where Noah is desperate for guidance because it seems that certain decisions made by his family are ruining the vision, the Creator is silent and Noah is in control. Ultimately, the film does put forward a humanist perspective 0f human autonomy. It trusts in the goodness of humanity, and yet it implies its depravity in the line of Cain. This point is confusing.
I have tried to present a balanced response to the film, but it is still subjective and not dispassionate. There is much more that could be said, such as the creative addition of the Watchers, which seems to suggest some loose inspiration from the Nephilim (???), the big climatic complication in the story concerning Shem and the made-up character of Ila, the complete dismissal of the climax of the biblical account: God’s covenant with Noah, etc. However, I believe the film has inherent integrity in that it addresses the issues it raises. It does not shy away from presenting ideas that are controversial but important, like the nature/state of humanity, in a raw way, and the dilemmas of moral choices. Whatever your view on the film, I hope you will adopt it with thought and integrity. As I said, I don’t believe the director himself sought to present the story of the Bible. I do believe he thought it good material for creative licence, and does not pretend to do otherwise. However, its representation of the Creator is found wanting, and it does, even from an artistic point of view, make us question his relevance. And perhaps that is how Aronofsky feels. (I hope I didn’t just open a can of worms with that.)
7/10
13th April 2014
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Warm Bodies: a surprising fresh and heart-WARMing (see what I did there) take on a plethora of zombie/vampire-related stuff
A review dedicated to Jayne Ling
I have to admit, when I first saw those two teenagers on a bright red backdrop of a poster, my thoughts were on anything but “I so want to see this!!”. However, who isn’t curious when one watches the trailer and hears the non-chalant voice of R (Nicholas Hoult) narrating with dry and perfectly timed comedic beat. Hoult plays a ‘teenage’ zombie in a post-apocalyptic unknown part of (where else but) the US. His days are directionless, his hours purposeless. He just is. Existing but not living. Awake but not alive. He ‘lives’ with a crew of mindless similar others in a deserted airport. However, he isn’t like them. He craves for more. So when he meets ‘the girl’ (who happens to be a living human being – surprise!), Julie (played by Aussie Theresa Palmer), his desire to be in her world and alive again increases and as he experience human connection, he ultimately, through some mysterious vicarious transfer, become increasingly alive. Sounds cheesy, but what makes this film a success with the audience in keeping fresh is its beautiful balance between comedy and a real sense of danger to our protagonists. It does not glorify (read: cheeseball) the romance between R and Julie, but rather keeps central the underscoring theme of the power of hope and human connection through their building friendship. The juxtaposition of intimate and raw and simple moments of relating with bloody scenes of violence at most times achieves the film’s purpose of displaying that very theme.
Again, what makes this film a success is that it does not use a post-apocalyptic setting for the exploration of teenage romance alone (which is what The Host does) but rather the naturally arising questions: what is there to live for when each day is just about existing? what is hope and why is it important? what does it mean to truly live? This film asks these questions honestly and believably through the shy but sincere character of R, and best of all, inflects them onto us as we grow to love R as our mascot for asking these questions of ourselves in our existence. (SPOILER ALERT:) When R and his zombie counterparts begin to assimilate into the society of ‘the living’ and join forces with humans to defend themselves against ‘Bonies’ (creatures that no longer have a conscience of any kind and simply exist to eat human hearts) at the end of the film, R says “I wish we could say we cured the Bonies with love [human connection and affection] but really we just straight up killed them all…that’s kind of messed up but no one felt too bad about it. They were too far gone to change.” Understated, and yet profound. These words impart perhaps the idea that there is not hope forever. There is a resolute line that is drawn; a place and time when it is ‘too late’. R then says that the “key” to their assimilation into human society (“the cure”) was the humans accepting them, connecting with them, teaching them how to be human. He adds “It was scary at first, but every great thing starts out scary, doesn’t it?” For the Christian, this speaks so clearly of the humans’ cure to just existing and not living: being connected with the one who made ‘how to be human’ and ultimately fulfills and lives out ‘how to be human’ in the person of Jesus. And it means a whole 180 degree change of life. But then, every great thing starts out scary. The existence of the zombies is a social commentary of our existence today (ironically presented in a short scene where R imagines what the airport would’ve looked like when humans used it – the scene fills with masses of people all walking in different directions, all on their cell phones): we are mindlessly wondering around, without real connection, without real hope, without real life. We need something outside of our existence to pump the arteries again.
8/10
30th April 2013
————————————————————————————————————————————-
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2: as good an ending as you can get to a franchise of overrated plot lines
The mania leading up to the release of this final installment of the billions-grossing film franchise is not as misleading as that leading up to the release of the first film. In simple words, though my expectations were low, I was pleasantly surprised at how good editing and pacing has made Part 2 a generally enjoyable ride of well timed comic relief, a bit more subdued cheese (though there was still too much kissing!), heart-pumping action and heart-stopping shock.
This last film picks up where Part 1 ended – a transformed Bella awakens as a vampire with new senses. We see the world through her newborn eyes. Our sharp sensitive hearing picks up the sound of an insect moving here, a drop of water there. Our super vision (lack of a better word?) allows us to see the tiniest of details. The audience is swept along in the euphoria of Bella’s new experiences. Slowly reality hits – the burden of dealing with how she would react to holding her half-human half-vampire baby, how to explain everything to her father Charlie, what it means for their relationship with Jacob Black (who had, at the end of the previous installment, ‘imprinted’ on her daughter Renesmee), etc etc. But for all things, the ever faithful Edward Cullen and clan seem to have no other concern in the world than to attend to every detail of Bella’s adjustment. (Doesn’t Carlisle work as a very busy surgeon in the first film!?) However, despite this, the journey is an exciting one for both Bella and audience.
As with all Meyer’s plots, the complication is always too boring to be excited about. Nevertheless, the filmmakers in this case have done a fairly decent job at increasing the tension and building it towards the climax. So the problem arises when Irina, a cousin of the Cullens, sees Jacob (in his werewolf state) and is filled with anger (as Jacob killed her husband in a previous battle) and then sees Renesmee fly up to catch a snowflake. She notices Bella also, but in her anger, is confused and fearful. The Cullen clan download Bella on the significance of this. Apparently it is a huge crime to create an “immortal child”. We are told that in the past, vampires craving for children would turn children into vampires. However, immortal children did not know how to control their thirst and if in a tantrum, destroyed whole villages, drinking their way through. As a result, the vampire lawkeepers (the Volturi) decided to outlaw the practice. Those found practising it would be sentenced to death (ripping off a vampire’s head and burning all in fire). Irina had obviously mistaken Renesmee for an immortal child and Bella fears that she would inform the Volturi of this. The rest is history. For a film of this much media and public anticipation, a physical battle is almost a given. And here the audience gets more than they asked for. To say more would give away too much, but a twist is skilfully placed into the plot line that deviates from the book without affecting the integrity of the original plot. The result would please both film-goers and avid fans alike.
However, there were elements about the film that I found unsettling. For example, though we are told that the exceptionality of Renesmee’s birth has implied her rapid growth rate, this doesn’t seem to disturb her grandfather! Any normal human being would think at least something’s up. Also, the drawing together of a resolution is rushed. The negotiations with the Volturi involves somewhat ad hoc witnesses and evidence to prove that Renesmee is indeed not an immortal child or a threat to the secrecy and existence of vampires. The story thus seems more contrived than believable within the scope of the film.
In sum, as pure entertainment, Breaking Dawn Part 2 satisfies. It promises and delivers on more tasteful romance, more epic battles, more comedy (not unsimilar to the type of comedy in the Harry Potter film franchise), moments of genuine surprise. Yet somehow, it is like a skilled artist painting a boring subject. The special effects, music, good-looking actors and well-rounded editing can only do so much for a plot that has limited potential.
6/10
18th November 2012
————————————————————————————————————————————-
The Adjustment Bureau: a film that attempts to ask questions that it doesn’t ask all that determinedly
Matt Damon. Love him. Emily Blunt. Love her. Put them together. Love! Well, sort of. If you haven’t seen The Adjustment Bureau, then I do recommend it. I went to see it about two weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised but also left feeling somewhat unsatisfied. The film focuses on a politician named David Norris who ‘accidentally’ discovers that his life, and not only his, but everyone’s life, has a plan. The Chairman, who writes these plans, has ‘caseworkers’ who follow and monitor the choices of their ‘cases’ and makes appropriate adjustments in their choice patterns in order to ensure that they are on course according to the plan. (Spoiler alert coming up!) When Norris finds out that a mystery woman he met ‘by plan’, who he is instantly attracted to, is in fact someone he would never see again, according to the plan, he decides to give ‘fate’ a run for its money by using all means possible to meet her again. The film implies many religious notions about fate, predestination, choice, freewill…but I think it fails to do any of these justice in its exploration of them. I think it could’ve taken these ideas further. Whoever ‘the Chairman’ is (the film implies he is God), he obviously doesn’t know what he’s doing – how can He plan Norris not to be with the love of his life, who seems so perfect for him? But, if the Chairman really is sovereign, David’s successes certainly challenge that idea. Nevertheless, the film screams questions for the engaged viewer: is there a truth/plan maker? If so, does he make good plans? Do we acts are pawns on a chessboard or are we somehow still active agents?
I think the ending is a bit sloppy – it doesn’t draw out any of these questions strong enough to actually make you think about what the filmmakers were actually thinking! But I think the ending does perhaps get you thinking about this: maybe predestination and choice are not dichotomous (despite what other reviewers say; that it’s about predestination vs. freewill) 🙂
7/10
life matters 
Leave a comment