Children as Innocents

As cultural critic Neil Postman noted in The Disappearance of Childhood, the idea of childhood as a protected time from infancy to adolescence has its roots in the concept of innocence. Children were to be protected from the corrupting influences of the adult world until they could gain the chronological maturity necessary to understand and protect themselves. Postman explained, “One might say that one of the main differences between an adult and a child is that the adult knows about certain facets of life — its mysteries, its contradictions, its violence, its tragedies — that are not considered suitable for children to know: that are indeed shameful to reveal to them indiscriminately.”

The Perfect Game presents children as children. Little League in 1957 was not beset by many of the problems associated with the professionalizing of the sport today. None of the children look like roided-out Mark McGuire wannabes. Sandy Koufax is a hero to them, but they are not concerned about scouts in the stands; they just want to make their families and their country proud of them – and to play ball.

The kids are not rubes. They have experienced their own share of tragedy. One of the boys has lost his brother. All of them live in a poor town – they have to make their gear out of things they can scrounge. When Angel, the team’s pitcher, finds a real baseball out in a field, the kids think it is a gift from God, so they ask Him for a bat. The team also faces racism on the road. The film does not sugarcoat the prejudice that existed alongside the Leave it to Beaver suburban ideal of the 1950s.

The adults in The Perfect Game are not flawless. Angel’s father is nursing a grudge against God for taking Angel’s older brother. The coach, Cesar, was part of a major league organization, but moved back to Mexico when he was denied a promotion, apparently based on his race. Despite these flaws, most of the adults in the film recognize their responsibility to support, encourage, and protect these young players. Padre Esteban and Reverend Clarence provide the team with spiritual and tangible support. It is refreshing to see clergy portrayed in a way that actually represents the kind of selfless service that the vast majority of people provide – even though that kind of work rarely makes headlines.

While the young people with whom I screened The Perfect Game loved the film, it saddened me that the kind of innocence and purity of motive exemplified in this film has to be viewed through the lens of the past. The funny thing is, many of the critics who will pass on The Perfect Game because of the nostalgic way it presents children, will laud as “luminous and exciting,” “gloriously perverse,” and “cool” the prepubescent character of “Hit Girl” in the post-modern comic-book film Kick-A**.

Children as Exploitation

There is no doubt that Chloe Moretz turns in a fully-committed performance in her role as Hit Girl – one half of a father-daughter vigilante team on a quest to destroy a criminal empire. But it is precisely the film’s gleeful exploitation of the image of a little girl engaging in over-the-top violence worthy of a Tarantino film that makes it work – and that is troubling. That 11-year-old Hit Girl also becomes the object of desire for a 17-year-old boy is disturbing as well. The only saving grace is the boy’s proclamation that he would “wait for her” – the film’s singular nod to self-restraint.
Because Kick-A** is rated R, children are not the target audience for this movie (but we should not be so naive as to think that legions of them won’t find a way in). There won’t be any kids meal tie-ins with fast food restaurants. In order for this film to succeed, adults will have to line up and pay to watch an 11-year-old girl hurl the most vulgar profanities to come out of a kid’s mouth since The Exorcist. That it is done with a wink does nothing to make it more acceptable. In an interview, Moretz admitted that her mother would never allow her to use that kind of language at home, or anywhere. Yet mom signed off on making her daughter’s character, in what will become a signature role, a cultural icon – an image to be praised and emulated by others. Isn’t that ironic?

We Get What We Support

In this David and Goliath battle at the box office, the winner is predetermined. Kick-A** is slated to open on nearly ten times the number of screens as The Perfect Game. And that is telling as well. Our culture prefers its entertainment loud and bloody, undercutting the horror with humor and stylized camera work. We have become so desensitized that the only way to create surprise and shock value for adults is to take a cute, vulnerable-looking girl in a school uniform, turn her into an obscenity-spewing death machine, and then watch as she slaughters with abandon and is herself beaten to a bloody pulp by an adult male. She kills, we cheer — and our culture dies a little.

But there is an alternative. Find a theater showing The Perfect Game and take your children to see it. Invite your friends. Let them watch kids overcome the odds, with support from caring adults, and achieve something meaningful. How a film does on opening weekend determines whether it will expand in the following weeks or disappear from the theater. At the risk of beating this drum too loudly, if we say we want films that really represent our values, then we simply must support them. Otherwise characters such as Hit Girl will simply be the opening salvos in a continuing war against childhood innocence.

As you can imagine, the U.S. Postal Service does not have a lot of luck getting Tyler’s mail to God, so the task falls upon a troubled mail carrier, Brady, to deal with the letters. He tries to take them to a church — a seemingly fine place to deliver letters to God – but the local pastor makes it clear that the letters were entrusted to Brady for a reason. So Brady, a divorced dad struggling with his own demons, suddenly discovers that he is on a mission from God.

Letters to God has a lot of talk about Jesus. People openly pray in this film, discuss death, and rejoice in their lives. Maddy Doherty, Tyler’s mother, is a single mom trying to raise two boys. The family – including a helpful grandma — cares about each other, though they are not perfect, and not all endings are happy ones. If this sounds a lot like the real life of Christians you know it may be because Letters to God is based on a true story. Young Tyler’s real-life letter writing campaign has changed the lives of countless others.

So where do you come in?

Christians lament the realistic portrayal of Christians on the screen. They say that they want to see more positive content – films that move them spiritually and that they can use to make an impact in the lives of their friends. But when To Save A Life came out earlier this year, it grossed only $4 million – despite being a better (and more thought-provoking) film than many Hollywood-produced small films. Even Fireproof, a movie that many Christians viewed as a success, brought in only $33 million. Just to compare, the completely dismal film The Bounty Hunter so far has raked in $50 million and is still climbing.

Are the films produced by Christian production companies completely up to Hollywood standards? If you are going to compare them to movies such as The Hurt Locker or expect the special effects to rival Transformers, well, no. But are they as good as, if not better than, many of the films that achieve wide release? Absolutely.

But the most important thing is that if we want these studios to get better at their craft, we need to support their efforts. In medieval times, artists in the church had patrons who supported them in their art. Today ticket-buyers take the place of patrons. In this case, you literally get what you pay for. So this weekend you can choose to support Clash of the Titans a terribly-plotted remake of a cheesy film from the 80s with some great visuals but not much else. Or you can take your family to a little film that will challenge the way they choose to deal with adversity and that will help them to reach out to others. Don’t “release the Kraken” — see Letters to God.

Marc Newman: This is your first screenwriting credit. On the other book adaptations for the screen, how much control did you have over the screenplay or the final edit?

Nicholas Sparks: I don’t get screenwriting credit. I do get asked for my notes and my thoughts and, depending on the studio, they carry a lot of weight or less weight. So, for instance, when I worked with Denise De Novi (a producer on Sparks’ next film, The Lucky One), she cares very deeply about what I think. The Lucky One, starts filming in May, that will be adaptation number four, so I’ll probably sit down with that script and literally put notes in for three full days and really try to figure out the elements that I think are missing. And then I’ll give the notes to them and they will take them or they won’t. In the end the film has to be going the way the director says, too.

MN: For people who are familiar with you primarily through the screen adaptations of your work, what do you wish they knew that would be apparent in your novels, but not so much on the screen?

NS: What a lot of people really don’t know is that in many ways the novels are just as powerful as the films. You can watch The Notebook, and love The Notebook, and look at the book and think to yourself, “I don’t have to read that because I saw the film” or “I already know the story, so the book won’t move me the way it did” – and yet it will. It’s the same thing with The Last Song. I don’t care if you’ve seen the film, the book is worth reading. I made them purposefully different. There is a wonderful journey that Steve undergoes; an introspective journey about faith – he’s really searching for God’s presence, and it’s a very large part of everything that Steve does. Ronnie is confronted with a different choice toward the end of the novel. These are things that are not in the film, and they are very powerful.

MN: How do your books reveal things about you and your character, in a way that we cannot see in screen adaptations?

NS: Film and novels are very different mediums. I also look at it this way; I’ve already had my turn. You want to see how I see The Last Song? Just walk into a bookstore, buy the book, read it, let your imagination go, and there it is. That’s my vision. When you cede control in an adaptation, I think it’s good that you also get someone else’s vision, how they see it.

MN: The interior lives of characters are more accessible in print than they are on a screen. How did you negotiate that transition as a writer?

NS: It’s tough. There’s a real efficiency in screenplays, and that efficiency often lends itself to cliché. So you have to try to do it without being cliché. There are different rules that you have to hold to when you do a screenplay as opposed to a novel. And it goes the other way too; some things work well in film that wouldn’t work so well in a novel. For instance, in The Last Song, what Ronnie does by covering up the turtle nest with a shopping cart, that is a very vivid, fun scene. You learn a little bit about her just by looking at what she did. That would be very hard to do in a book.

MN: In film you show, rather than tell?

NS: Yes, in pictures.

MN: All of your screen adaptations have featured death as a central character – sometimes stalking in the background in A Walk to Remember, sometimes as a surprise in Nights in Rodanthe, and sometimes more aggressively as with this current film. People speak of you as a writer of romance. What is the connection between death and romance?

NS: I write tragedies – updated Greek tragedies. That is a much more accurate term than to say I write romance. It’s the difference between Cinderella and Romeo and Juliet. Cinderella is a classic – it’s what the romance genre is: a fantasy, romantic escape. That’s not what I do. I do Romeo and Juliet. Love and romance are a part of it, but so is the rest of the range of human emotion. And sadness is part of that and can come in different forms. Now in the screen adaptations, yes, somebody always dies, but in my own novels they don’t. I mean The Wedding was very happy, and in The Guardian it was the dog that died, not people. But it is important to understand the link between love and tragedy: all great love stories, by definition, have to end in tragedy. The greater the love, the greater the tragedy when one of them dies.

MN: I always thought what C. S. Lewis said was profound. That men will promise you heaven on earth, but even if they could give it, every generation would lose it by death. One of them must, eventually, die.

NS: One of them must. Orson Welles said, “Show me a happy ending, and I will show you a story that’s not finished yet.”

MN: Specifically in The Last Song – people are going to focus on Miley Cyrus because this is her “breakout role” but I thought the film really belonged to Greg Kinnear, who plays her father, Steve. What made you decide to hide the rationale behind the parent’s divorce in this film?

NS: That was a big debate, and I lost that debate.

MN: Did you want to reveal it?

NS: I wanted to reveal. I revealed in the book and I revealed in my original screenplay. It was edited out. It was thought to be “too deep” for ten or eleven-year-olds. It was a judgment call. But Disney’s been at it a long time and they know best how to make a Disney movie – certainly better than I know how to make a Disney movie.

MN: This is Miley’s film, and she’s going to bring her audience…

NS: Yes. Am I disappointed? No. I’m okay with that. In the end I wanted a film that Disney is proud of. It was in there, they filmed it, then they said they were going to put it in, then they said, “No, we’re not,” then they said, “We are,” then they said, “No, we’re not.” (laughing). Finally I said, “Do whatever you want,” but my motto is, “When in doubt, take it out.”

MN: C.S. Lewis argued that the world doesn’t need more Christian writers, it needs more great writers who are Christians. I sense that you are committed to be the second kind. How does your theology inform your writing?

NS: Very much so. For example there are certain lines I will not cross in my writing. I don’t write with profanity, I don’t write about adultery, and if you say, “So what?” In a love story, what you have to have is a reason that the characters can’t be together. This provides the conflict. They can’t be together because, in The Notebook, parents drag them away, and the next time they meet, she’s engaged. They can’t be together in Dear John because he gets sent off to war and when he comes back she’s married someone else. They can’t be together in The Last Song because she’s only here for the summer, he’s going off to college, they’ll never see each other again. So what’s the easiest reason why two people can’t be together? It’s because one of them is married. It’s what they did in The Bridges of Madison County, it’s what they did in The Horse Whisperer, it’s the easiest one. I’ve written fifteen books without doing the easiest one. So, I don’t write about adultery and I don’t write about premarital sex between minors. I just don’t write it. I know it happens, I’m not naive. But just because it does happen, it doesn’t happen to a hundred percent of young people, so I want people to know that, “Hey, you’re seventeen, you can be in love and not go all the way.” These choices are informed by my theology. I’m also very comfortable writing about faith, for instance in The Last Song and in A Walk to Remember.

MN: After initially embracing motion pictures, the Church walked away from the movies by the 1940s, turning instead to radio. Now there seems to be a resurgence of interest in film and filmmaking by people of faith. What would you say to a Christian who wonders whether filmmaking is an appropriate calling?

NS: I think everybody is given gifts by the Lord. I think it is up to each of us to discover what those gifts are – that is, in fact, the theme of the Christian school that we founded: “uncovering gifts for the journey” – if you are a gifted storyteller, if you are a gifted director, if God gave you that gift, I think it is up to you to make the most of that gift. Otherwise, you’re not honoring God. So, I try to write great stories. I have these lines that I don’t cross. If you’re given a gift, it’s a sin not to use it. Some people ask, “Why do I still write?” I don’t need the money. So why do I do it? Because it’s a sin to waste God’s gift. If God gives you the ability to do something, you do it. You do it to honor God, who gave you that gift. So, sure, there is a calling. You need to set the lines that you’re not going to cross. I have been very happy that I have not crossed any of those lines since book one. I am happy that I have not descended from my principles in order to build a market share. Here I am. Take it or leave it.

MN: Have you considered exploring other genres or in writing a book that explores the process of writing from your worldview perspective as has Steven King, Anne Lamont, even Terry Brooks?

NS: Well, maybe. I haven’t thought about it recently, to tell the truth. I have a non-fiction book coming, it’s called Fishing With My Son. It’s a book about fatherhood.

MN: You have a book on coaching track too – running the 800 meters — don’t you?

NS: (laughing) Yes, it’s coming, I’m at the college level now. I just have to get through college and elite and the book is done. I mean, I’ve set everything out.

Sparks also told me that he strongly hopes to see a Broadway musical adaptation of The Notebook, but recognizes that the stage is an entirely different medium. He does not simply want the book or film reproduced with music tacked on. He also revealed some key elements in the book version of The Last Song that I cannot include here without spoiling your read. Just follow his advice. See the film, then go buy the book and find out for yourself.

Instead, stories of sacrifice and redemption ruled the Oscar’s main categories for screenplay, three of the four main acting awards, direction, and best animated feature and best picture.

Precious

Both Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire and The Hurt Locker are intensely personal films. The first is the story of an urban African-American teenager saddled with just about every disadvantage one can imagine: poor, obese, nearly illiterate, living in a severely damaged family, raped and pregnant. Almost anyone would drown in despair, but a teacher and a social worker look beyond appearances and throw out a lifeline. Taking in less than ten percent of Avatar’s domestic box office gross, perhaps this win for best adapted screenplay, along with a best supporting actress win for Mo’Nique will encourage more people to see it.

Crazy Heart

Jeff Bridges won a long-overdue award for Best Actor as Bad Blake, an alcoholic country singer who, when we meet him, hit bottom, smashed right through, and continued his descent. His interview with a music journalist Jean Craddock leads to love and what appears to be a standard redemption formula relationship, but the story refuses to go there. Crazy Heart lacks the witness of Tender Mercies – still the best film of this genre. Still, Bad’s realistic road toward sobriety through Alcoholics Anonymous reads hope into an otherwise hopeless life.

The Blind Side

Sandra Bullock was genuinely shocked, I think, that she won Best Actress for her role as Leigh Anne Touhy – the real-life heroine of The Blind Side. The Academy has demonstrated over the years that they are not averse to awarding Oscars to actresses portraying outspoken Christians. Bullock joins Geraldine Page (1985 as Carrie Watts in A Trip to Bountiful), Susan Sarandon (1995 as Catholic nun, Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking), and Reese Witherspoon (2005 as June Carter Cash in Walk the Line) in this vein. You have to go back to 1983 to find an Oscar nod for Best Actor going to an explicitly Christian character (Robert Duvall in Tender Mercies), and before that to 1966 for Paul Scofield’s turn as Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons.

Bullock’s portrayal of Touhy, a wealthy, white Southern woman, who takes in a homeless African American teen out of compassion and Christian conviction, lit up the box office with receipts from people wanting to see a redemptive story. The Blind Side had the added allure of being true. Wiping away stereotypes, director John Lee Hancock explained that this was not a case of simple white guilt. “Leigh Anne Touhy did not put Michael Oher into that car because he was black,” he told me in an interview. “She put him in that car because he was cold.” Bullock won the Oscar because her performance was inspiring. I hope that it encourages Hollywood to make similar films.

Up

Always a long shot for Best Picture, Up still won for Best Animated Feature Film, beating out the dark Coraline, and the forced-feeling The Princess and the Frog. Pixar appears incapable of making a bad film, and Up continued their winning combination of a great story, outstanding voice talent, and incredible animation. Like The Blind Side, Up is a primarily a redemption story about an elderly man, Carl Fredrickson, who makes a perilous journey to find meaning in his life, when what he is looking for is actually standing on his front porch in a Junior Wilderness Explorer uniform. The little boy, Russell, needs to be rescued from a culture of absent fathers – and though curmudgeonly Carl would, at first glance, be no one’s pick for Father of the Year, the film reveals how unusual circumstances can shape us into the people we are meant to be. Pixar’s continuing track record makes me anxious to see their next offerings: Toy Story 3 and 1906.

The Hurt Locker

In his screenplay for The Hurt Locker, writer Mark Boal takes the viewer into the world of ordinance disposal units in Iraq – the guys who step right up to diffuse those improvised explosive devices that we all read about from the safety of our homes thousands of miles away. Kathryn Bigelow, who won this year’s Academy Award for Best Director, wisely skirts the debate over whether Iraq is the Good War or the Bad War. She simply shows us The War, and challenges us to appreciate the mental toughness and sheer bravado required to snuff the life out of a 500-pound bomb. The heroes we meet here are not throwbacks from the “gee whiz” and “as shucks, ma’am, t’wernt nothin’” war films of the 1940s and 50s, but real flesh and blood men you might meet on your flight as they head home from deployment. Boal and Bigelow’s film makes you want to say, “Thanks,” and that is what makes The Hurt Locker the Saving Private Ryan of this awards season and why it deserved its award for Best Picture.

Where is Avatar?

Maybe it was backlash against its Titanic box office haul, but I honestly think the Academy simply did its job. Avatar was an eye-popping film, so it justifiably won a fistful of technical awards. But with a nation at war, an economy in shambles, in the midst of political uncertainty, the Academy largely awarded films that celebrated the triumph of the human spirit, the healing power of love, and the heroism of those who risk all to save the lives of their comrades. As these films get the expected Oscar bump – if they are still in theaters – or find a second life on DVD, such stories invite reflection, response, and discussion. Christians have their own tales of triumph, healing, forgiveness, and heroism. With these themes brought to the fore by this year’s Academy Awards, we should find ways to share them.

To make the most of these films, assuming they meet expectations, MovieMinistry will be preparing FilmTalk Small Group Bible Studies to drive discussion of moral and spiritual content toward the Scriptures. Consider subscribing to our FilmTalk card service today.

Here are MovieMinistry’s Films to Look for in 2010:

The Book of Eli — January 15

Set in a post-apocalyptic world, salvation lies within the pages of a single sacred book. The problem is, only one copy exists and Eli must protect it from destruction. If you cannot see the implications in a film like this you are not looking very hard.

To Save a Life — January 22

Finally, a film that shows Christians dealing with something other than demonic possession or the apocalypse. To Save a Life is a challenging film about teen suicide and the self-destructive nature of contemporary teen culture. It refuses to sugarcoat the complexities of church life, bringing into the light the lukewarmness, outright rebellion, cliques, and other struggles that are a part of working in youth ministry. The characters are real. The film does not shy away from Christ as the answer, but He is not the genie in a bottle waiting to grant your wishes once you rise from the baptismal waters. Instead He is a rock to cling to when the waves of a dangerous culture and those caused by your own sinfulness, threaten to wash you away.

Legion — January 22

I expect that this will be a terrible film. But any movie about bands of renegade angels is bound to stir up some conversation about the existence of angels, what they are, and what purpose they serve. For a quick overview before the film, see Billy Graham’s book, Angels.

Extraordinary Measures — January 22

John Crowley is father to two children with a rare genetic disorder. Desperate for a cure, he finds an ally in Dr. Robert Stonehill. This film is being pitched to the faith community, and there is clearly a strong family ethic in this film, revolving around the connection between love and sacrifice.

Dear John — February 5

People have a soft spot for Nicholas Sparks, the writer of The Notebook and A Walk to Remember. This story is about an enlisted man with a troubled past who meet a beautiful, straight-arrow college student. As feelings grow – expect this movie to revel in longing in a way that may put Twilight to shame – circumstances conspire to keep the lovers apart. There is always an underlying morality to Sparks’ tales. I would expect no less from this one.

The Wolfman — February 12 (this is a crowded date)

A holdover, previously expected to be released during the Christmas season. I am not sure if the change in the release date is a marketing strategy, or an indication that the film is sub-par. I am hoping for the former. After years of slogging through monster films that try to use scientific explanations for conditions like vampirism, so that we can have simple, biological weapons to defeat the undead, it looks like Hollywood is going to bring back supernatural horror. The Wolfman, a remake of the classic 1941 film, concerns Lawrence Talbot and the calamity that befalls him when he kills what he believes to be a wolf. Bitten during the struggle, Talbot discovers from an old gypsy woman that he is now cursed to transform into a wolf when the moon is full. The trailer reveals a period film where a minister warns the congregation of “the power of Satan to turn a man into a beast.” This film looks to be graphically violent, but if it hits (and crackerjack casting indicates that it will) doors will open to discuss the nature of supernatural evil and just what kind of “silver bullets” we need to overcome it.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief — February 12

The central idea of this film series is that the Olympian gods are real and the demigods (half god/half human) walk the earth. The movie will deal with coming-of-age issues which are often easier to discuss in a fictional environment than the real one many adolescents are experiencing. Additionally, I think that a film that reveals that gods thought long dead or fictional are actually real and active might create an interesting bridge to discuss the existence of God, despite persistent cultural denial.

Beauty and the Beast — February 12

In a great piece of counter-programming, Disney has decided to re-release one of the best, most romantic animated films of the ’90s just in time for Valentine’s Day. Sure, it is an unusual romance, with a plucky heroine and a singularly unattractive beast of a man. But it is filled with things to talk about: arrogance, bigotry, hospitality, self-sacrifice, and a host of other topics. And it looks great on a big screen.

Alice in Wonderland — March 5

People either love or hate Tim Burton, but there is little denying that he is one of the most original directors in the business. Expect this film to be more action-packed than you may have remembered when reading the story, and much darker than the original Disney animated feature. Still, the idea of doing whatever it takes to discover your true destiny (even if, at first, it seems a bit foolish) may open up some interesting conversation areas.

Why Did I Get Married Too — April 2

Even when Tyler Perry is not firing on all cylinders (Madea Goes to Jail comes to mind) his films still has more thoughtful content than any dozen other Hollywood features. The four couples from the first film Why Did I Get Married? reunite, this time in the Bahamas. Lots of marital and family drama will erupt, some of which is sure to touch on the long-term implications of sin. Madea does not make an appearance.

Iron Man 2 — May 7th

The new Iron Man looks to be more political than spiritual, but themes concerning vengeance, greed and the need to pay for past sins appear to be at the fore. This will be one of the biggest movies of the summer. Prepare to look past the explosions (okay, you are free to enjoy them while they are happening) and into the heart of this film. The first Iron Man was a gold mine of discussion topics. This one looks like it will continue that tradition.

Robin Hood — May 14

The trailer for Robin Hood looks a lot more like Gladiator than an Errol Flynn film. With Ridley Scott directing, I would expect no less. If the film sticks to the popular story line, there may be opportunities to talk about injustice and what constitutes an appropriate response, leadership, and what makes someone a hero.

Sex and the City 2 — May 28

I need not go too far out on a limb to say that this film will be a cautionary tale. While it should not be seen, it will be, and talked about all around the water cooler. Because a sanitized version of this sexualized series has been playing on cable for years, some parents were a little surprised at the degree of blatant sexuality in the first film version. But even with the more explicit material cut out in syndication, these women do not represent proper role models. Christians have a better answer about questions concerning romance, love, and sex. While not supporting this film with our wallets, being aware of the plot line once it materializes might provide openings to speak up about a more fulfilling approach to love and sex.

Toy Story 3 — June 18th

Pixar returns with the third installment of Woody and Buzz Lightyear. The Pixar brand has come to stand for such unstinting quality, and the trailers have the right mix of wistfulness and humor. This will be another hit. Andy is all grown up and heading off to college. The toys, now feeling abandoned, are to be donated to a day care. Mayhem, and a desperate need to plan an escape, ensues. I am anticipating talk about perseverance and commitment.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse — July 2

I had some good things to say about the first in this series of vampire romance films, but the second outing, New Moon, was morally disturbing on many fronts. One thing is for certain: Stephenie Myer’s audience is built in, and this will be a blockbuster. These movies feed teen angst and the need to belong to someone and something greater than themselves. Christians should take notice and expose the kinds of compromises these films require. The Scriptures contain many stories of romance and love. When it comes to eternal life, we have the right answers.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice — July 16

Disney takes the segment from Fantasia and molds the basic idea into a full-length, live-action feature. Magic is big this year, so it would behoove Christians to learn more about what the Bible has to say about sources of power. I expect the film to be high on action and light on the philosophical and theological angles — but that doesn’t mean that heavier topics should be off the table. Despite the fantasy element, the desire of human beings to have and horde power and to exercise it over others is a perennial problem – particularly if you are in the role of victim.

Secretariat — October 8

Sports movies tend to have a lot of biblical parallels. Perhaps that is why the Apostle Paul uses sports as metaphors for the spiritual life. Secretariat was the name of the horse that won the Triple Crown in 1973. With director Randall Wallace, who wrote the screenplay for Braveheart and who was the screenwriter for We Were Soldiers and The Man in the Iron Mask, I expect to see those metaphors fully explored.

Rapunzel — November 12

Continuing its return to 2-D animation, Disney is releasing an updated version of the classic fairy tale about the girl with the ultimate hair extensions. The Brothers Grimm version of the story has some distressing turns in it, so expect a Disney-fication that will focus on love and perseverance in the face of potent obstacles.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — November 19th

Probably the most anticipated film of the year. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are no longer at Hogwarts. Instead, they are on a quest to locate and destroy the horcruxes that maintain the evil Lord Voldemort’s power. Some Christians have a perennial problem with Harry Potter, while others love the books and movies. Millions will flock to the film. Beyond the obvious “good vs. evil” plotlines, there will be a number of themes ripe for discussion, especially since J.K. Rowling peppered the book with Bible references. This is the first of a two-part film that will wrap up in summer of 2011.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader — December 10th

C.S. Lewis continues to duke it out with J.K. Rowling on the silver screen. Twentieth Century Fox picked up the partnership with Walden Media that was abandoned by Disney after Prince Caspian failed to deliver at the box office. Michael Apted has, thankfully, replaced director Andrew Adamson. Apted will have a more nuanced touch, as demonstrated in Amazing Grace. But don’t forget that he knows action, having directed films such as The World is Not Enough — a James Bond movie. The book is probably one of the most cinematic of The Chronicles of Narnia. This film will evoke talk about honor, commitment, fear, greed, freedom, and responsibility — all depending, of course, on how much of the book can make it to the screen.

As the economy continues to stumble along, going to the movies is providing people with escapism – temporary relief from their troubles. For the first time, in 2009, Hollywood box office receipts for North America topped $10 billion. As people seek entertainment, they are also exposed to persuasive messages and attractive worldviews. Some of these are consistent with Christianity, while others are not. Either way, Christians have an opportunity to engage those ideas by taking monologues (films talking to audiences) and turning them into dialogues (people talking together about the content of a film). Filmgoers often talk about moral, ethical, and spiritual ideas, over coffee, after a movie. So we should be ready to explore those ideas and give ready answers when given an opportunity. Always remember: people go to the movies to see stories. Don’t forget that you have one of your own to tell.

I grew up with the Chipmunks. Their signature hit "The Chipmunk Song" was released the year I was born, and is still a holiday classic ("Me, I want a hula hoop" – c’mon, you know the words!). In every incarnation, the Chipmunks have found their audience, and a lot of the credit can go to the unstinting commitment of producers Ross Bagdasarian, Jr., the son of the creator of the Chipmunks, and his wife Janice Karman to protect their characters and tell a meaningful story.

Commitment to Character

Over the past few years, viewers have been forced to endure the destruction of their childhood memories at the hands of unscrupulous filmmakers. The most recent travesty, Land of the Lost , turned Sid and Marty Kroft’s children’s drama into a vulgar, disgusting parody. The Brady Bunch , George of the Jungle , and Lost in Space all bowed to demands to include inappropriate material when adapted for the "big screen" in a lame effort to "capture" more of the "adult" (read "adolescent") audience.

So when I asked Bagdasarian whether he had ever come under any pressure from anyone to get cheap laughs by adding tasteless humor, he replied, "Absolutely." Fortunately, he explained, he and Karman have the absolute rights to the characters, and they both described their fierce commitment to maintaining Chipmunk integrity. If a gag or a situation compromised the characters – even if it was hilariously funny – out it went. Their resolve has been rewarded by fans: theaters are filled with grandparents taking their own children and grandchildren to these movies to laugh and sing along with Alvin.

This isn’t to say that all the Chipmunks are squeaky (sorry) clean role models. With teenagers – human or chipmunk – problems are bound to erupt.

Pride Divides

For the uninitiated – both of you – there are three chipmunks: Alvin (lead singer and mischief maker), Simon (smart and responsible), and Theodore (cuddly, lovable, and a little shy). Their band, Alvin and the Chipmunks, is wildly popular – but no amount of fame can satisfy Alvin. He wants more. At a concert packed with screaming fans, Alvin cannot resist taking performance risks to whip the crowd into a frenzy. Ignoring the pleas of Dave – his friend, parent figure, and band manager – Alvin goes too far, and Dave goes to the hospital. And then all three Chipmunks find themselves in the care of Dave’s slacker brother Toby, who decides that a stint in school would do them well.

But Alvin’s main problem has nothing to do with his immediate surroundings. He does not need a change of circumstances; he needs a change of character. Alvin is full of himself, yet his ego is in constant need of reinforcement. He seeks and gains popularity at school, joining the football clique, even though the head jock bullies Simon and Theodore. Alvin blows off rehearsals with his brothers in pursuit of personal accolades. Simon tries to reason with him, but the one who is really hurt is sensitive Theodore. Just how high a price is Alvin prepared to pay to be popular?

Forgiven or Excused?

Alvin is not in the film to be a cautionary tale, a good chipmunk gone bad. He really does love his brothers; he has just wandered too far down a bad path. At first, after every infraction, he tells his brothers that he is sorry. While he certainly seems to feel bad – in a sheepish sort of way – there is no real repentance. There is a little (sometimes a lot) of Alvin in all of us. We do not want to be forgiven, just excused. C.S. Lewis explained that being excused and being forgiven are nearly opposites. If someone’s excuses are valid, then there is little or nothing to forgive. Seeking forgiveness requires recognition that something inexcusable has taken place. It really is your fault. You did something wrong. You need forgiveness. This is why excuses are rarely accompanied by repentance, whereas seeking forgiveness and true repentance go hand in hand. The problem is that most of us offer excuses for actions that require forgiveness.

We can tell that repentance has taken place when behavior changes. Will Alvin have the courage to admit that what he did was truly wrong? Will he demonstrate his true commitment to his brothers, even at great risk to himself? Will Simon and Theodore extend real forgiveness? Will Alvin ever after be a little chipmunk straight from heaven? Well, you can ask for only so much. Let’s just say that Jesus’ instruction to Peter, that he may have to extend forgiveness not merely seven times, but seventy times seven, is in full force. It is inescapable that in order to learn to forgive you will have to be on the receiving end of bad behavior. In this morality play, everyone has his role.

Two Outcomes

If Alvin is the redeemable character, Ian Hawke – the evil record executive from the 2007 film
- represents his apparently irredeemable alternative. Like Alvin, Hawke craves the limelight and is willing to do whatever it takes to land back on top. Unlike Alvin, Hawke doesn’t care about anyone else enough to recognize when he has done them wrong. In a sense, his character exists to show the ultimate outcome of those who are consummately self-absorbed. Ian does not recognize right or wrong – he can see only success or failure; and his willingness to, quite literally, enslave others in order to achieve his goals is appropriately creepy.

Parables have the great power to show us a moral dilemma, and then allow the hearer to preview potential outcomes based upon the kinds of decisions that are made. Some people build their houses on sand, others on the rock. Some wedding attendants keep their lamps well supplied with oil in anticipation of the groom, while others foolishly run out and miss the wedding. One servant is faithful, the other is unfaithful. One set of circumstances, but different behaviors, result in different outcomes. When we see the better outcome, it helps us to commit to the right behavior, particularly when we discover ourselves in similar circumstances. Parables are simple stories designed to reveal moral truths and to challenge us to live rightly.

Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel is a morality tale. Okay, it isn’t deep theology, but it is, after all, a kids’ movie. With the general coarsening of culture, we should applaud whenever films tell simple truths well. And there are plenty of other topics to discuss: the importance of family, how to handle the initial stirrings of romance (brought on by the introduction of the Chipettes), coming into your own, and even a nod to the need, often under-recognized, for school music programs.

It is also a lot of fun.

But at its heart Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel is a film about the way a family forgives. Christmas is a time when many celebrate God sending His Son into the world to forgive what is truly inexcusable, making us a part of His family, and commanding us to forgive others as He forgives us. So, especially now, a film that winsomely reinforces everyone’s need to seek and extend forgiveness is welcome.

Based firmly in Romeo and Juliet — that is if Romeo were an undead, 100-year-old vampire – The Twilight Saga: New Moon (adapted from the best-selling series by Stephenie Meyer) tries hard to ratchet up the romance. Edward and Bella are about as star-crossed a set of lovers as you are likely to encounter, particularly since Edward has the stunning misfortune of being dead. They separate when Edward feels as if his presence puts Bella in too much danger, and, of course, his absence increases her vulnerability as a target. Needing a protector, in steps lupine Jakob Black. Mayhem, and not a little bit of almost kissing ensues. As someone who spends considerable time in theaters trying to ferret out the cultural and spiritual implications of popular film, I am not unaccustomed to seeing silliness on the screen. And I am not a curmudgeon – I love a good, sentimental film as well as anyone else. So if New Moon were simply a silly, Hannah-Montana-with-fangs type of film, I probably would just let it go.

Unfortunately, New Moon takes advantage of its tweenage audience’s budding love interests and spiritual inexperience in ways that really are horrifying. [For other discussion topics related to New Moon , see our FilmTalk Small Group Bible Study at www.movieministry.com] Since the film is breaking box office records, — the weekend estimates are over $140 million — meaning that millions of people are rushing to see it, this fictional film opens a very real opportunity to discuss how to approach spiritual issues, the danger of love as an idol (one that demands reckless sacrifices), and why it is the Church, not Hollywood, that has the best answer to the human desire for passionate romance and love.

Are People the Final Arbiter of Spiritual Truth?

While some critics have focused on Bella’s reckless behavior in pursuit of Edward (more on that below) hardly any have hit on the film’s spiritual solipsism – the idea that the individual is all that exists and is, therefore, the ultimate arbiter of truth. When phrased in that way, most people can immediately see the dangers inherent in such belief. Bella, in the book (not the movie) describes her own theological training at the hands of her father and mother: “My own life was fairly devoid of belief. Charlie considered himself a Lutheran, because that’s what his parents had been, but Sundays he worshipped by the river with a fishing pole in his hand. Renee tried out a church now and then, but, much like her brief affairs with tennis, pottery, yoga, and French classes, she moved on by the time I was aware of her newest fad.” (New Moon , p. 36).

To set things up for the uninitiated, Edward wants Bella, and Bella wants Edward. But Edward firmly believes that if Bella becomes a vampire, so that they can be together and not grow old, that it will cost Bella her soul. As a creature who fears eternal damnation, he is unwilling to bring her into such a state. But Bella, devoid of belief, has apparently come up with one on her own. She fervently claims that Edward does have a soul, and that she will not forfeit her own should she follow him into vampirism. On what does she base this hopeful claim? In the film the argument never advances beyond some kind of personal intuition. What it really comes down to is that Bella believes that Edward has a soul because she really wants him to have one. And she will not lose her soul, because, if she thought so, Edward would never give her what she wants.

Vampires are fictional creatures. New Moon is a movie. I understand. But underlying the theme of this fictional film is a very real philosophical presupposition. Human intuition – or human desire – is the determining factor in revealing spiritual truths. If we want badly enough for something to be true, it must be so. Compare this attitude with what the Apostle Peter claims: “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Determining that we can make up spiritual truths to suit our current emotional states is asking for trouble. If you want to know if someone, or some thing, has a soul, and what is likely to happen to one’s soul, the best place to turn is to the Person who created it: God. As creatures, we are not competent to assess our own spiritual state any more than a car could understand any of its own mechanical defects. For that, one needs to consult the operator’s manual. Fortunately, God has provided us with truth about who we are, what we are made for, and how best to live out the lives that we have from Him. It can be found in the Bible.

Bella’s emotion-driven theology is not the only problem that plagues her. She is also so consumed by her forbidden love that she makes an idol of it, and willingly sacrifices her own safety in exchange for the merest glimpse of her beloved.

Love as An Idol

It is easy to understand what drives modern love stories. Bella is only mimicking her pop culture environment. Love songs abound in which a love-struck singer professes endless, undying love, explaining that the beloved is “everything” and “means the world” and is “the only thing that matters.” Songs speak of how another’s love will “catch me when I fall.” The lyrics tend toward adoration – the kind that used to be reserved for God (just thumb through an old hymnal and you will see what I mean).

But when a culture is out of touch with God, it seeks substitutes. The everlasting joy with God that we were made for, must find a substitute if God is rejected. One of the ways that humans have attempted to fill the void created by their own rejection of God is in pursuit of passionate romantic love. As C.S. Lewis notes in The Four Loves , “Love, having become a god, becomes a demon” (83). Bella’s recklessness in pursuing Edward is a sign of her all-consuming quest to have him – no matter the cost.

When Bella is in danger, somehow (the film doesn’t explain it) Edward appears to her to warn her away. Bella quickly figures out that the only way to make the absent Edward present is to ignore his warnings and prolong the contact. She hops on the back of a motorcycle driven by a leering older man; she speeds off, uncontrolled, on a motorcycle of her own; and she even throws herself off a cliff and into a turbulent sea – in a scene that looks like an ancient act of sacrifice. How far removed are acts such as these from the dangerous activity of some teens called “cutting” – an act of self-injury in which teens willfully cut themselves as a way to deal with conflicting strong emotions or relationship problems? Teen girls reason, “If I endanger myself, then he will come, then he will care for me.” Placing oneself in danger is never an appropriate relationship strategy, but it not only works (in a way) for Bella, but for Edward as well.

To put forward this kind of behavior as consistent with deep passion is pandering to vulnerable teens. I recognize the intensity of teen feelings; I used to be a teen. But the kind of relationships that most people desire cannot be found by making lovers into idols. Human beings make lousy gods – they inevitably disappoint. But what truly amazes is that the Church fails to realize that, in the midst of this generational longing for love that will last, it has the answer. We simply need to be bold enough to explain and live it.

Chastity, Fidelity

The Bible’s answer to teens’ romantic urges is simple: chastity until marriage, and then faithfulness in marriage. When I get a chance to speak to teens or college students on the topic of love and romance, I pose a set of choices to the young women. I don’t think this scenario originated with me, but I cannot recall the first person I ever heard explain it in this way: “How many of you would like this to be your future? You meet a man in college. He’s great – an awesome guy. You fall in love. You get married. And three years later he says that he has outgrown you. You get a divorce. You are miserable for a couple of years. You start a career. You meet a guy at work. He is outstanding – much better than that first jerk. You fall in love, you get married. You have a couple of children. And five years later he gets a promotion, has an affair with his secretary (who is 23 years old), divorces you and marries her. You are crushed. A couple of years go by. You meet another man. He is a hero. You know this because our culture tells us that any man who would date a woman with kids is a hero. You are tentative, but eventually he wears you down, you fall in love, and you marry him. And it works out great… for ten years… and then….Okay, I think you get it. Now here is scenario number two: You meet a guy in college. You fall in love. You both graduate and he tells you that he loves you and wants to marry you. You tell him that you love him, you want to give yourself fully to him, but want to know what he means when he says it. He tells you that he has been waiting for a woman like you all of his life. He intends to vow before God that he will act in a loving way toward you every day of his life whether or not he happens to feel like it that day, because he is making a lifetime commitment to you. He means it. And then you get married. And he does it.” When I ask for a show of hands, every woman in the room votes for scenario two. Then I drop the bomb: “Which one of those two scenarios are you practicing for?”

I am not arguing that every Christian guy has always lived up to that commitment. I am saying that every Christian guy ought to. It is what the Scriptures command of him – it’s his responsibility. What is more romantic than knowing that a man has pledged to love you, and, if necessary, to lay down his life for you in the same way that Jesus did for the Church? This is not some Titanic -style martyrdom (though that would be included, if required) but a daily sacrifice of self to the well-being of his family as an act love, of honoring God and His institutions. If you still wonder if the Bible supports passionate love, have a look at The Song of Solomon in the Old Testament. God likes love and romance – He invented it.

In fairness to Twilight devotees, I know that marriage is the goal in the books. And when the first Twilight film debuted, I lauded it for its chaste attitude toward the sexual relationship between Edward and Bella. But any fair assessment of the self-destructive behaviors in New Moon would agree that this is a dangerous and ill-advised turn. And there is a better, more fulfilling alternative available in the real world.

God has no desire to undermine the pleasures of His creatures. He made you receptive to pleasure. He intends that you should experience it to the fullest. That is why He created marriage as a secure environment in which a man and a woman could perfect their expressions of love for one another. Movies and books in the Twilight vein (pun intended) recognize the passionate feelings of young people, and have found an excellent way to feed off and profit from them. The Church should step forcefully into this arena of ideas to explain its better way: a way from God, not subject to the whims of individual interpretation, fulfilling rather than destructive, valuing both the lover and the beloved in a mystery that the Apostle Paul tells us is a shadow of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

That the Tuohys were unconcerned about their portrayal struck me as an act of faith. Sean said that it really didn’t matter how they appeared, because everyone at church who really knew the Tuohys would recognize them if the portrayal was accurate, and dismiss it if Hollywood got them wrong. His only concession to the magic of the silver screen came in a lament. At his current stage of life, Sean is in the "cuddle weight" division. When country western star, and sometime actor, Tim McGraw (who is very fit) asked what Sean thought about being played by him, Sean, laughing, replied, "if you could take your shirt off in the film and walk around for about 20 seconds, you and I are good." But, to be honest, that image would have been an illusion, and the truth of what appears on screen is so much more appealing. The Tuohys trusted director John Lee Hancock to get it right.

The Tuohy’s faith in Hancock was well placed. Hancock pulled off something that has eluded just about every filmmaker other than Tyler Perry: he portrayed authentic Christians in a mainstream Hollywood film. Over the past few decades, Christianity has been essentially ignored as a part of a character’s profile in most Hollywood roles. Easily identifiable Christians (you can tell who they are by the clerical collars) are primarily relegated to performing weddings and funerals, or are remarkably unsuccessful exorcists. Otherwise they are ultimately the ones who turn into werewolves or are revealed as the sweaty serial killer. But Christianity, as part of the normal life of a character, was hard to find in mainstream Hollywood film. I mean, the world is coming to an end in 2012 and no one bothers to pray?

I do not know anything at all about Hancock’s personal faith commitments, or even if he has one, but what I can say after speaking with him and seeing the film he directed is that he strives for authenticity. It comes out in The Blind Side in just the way any fair-minded person of faith would hope: integrated rather than preachy, complex, and introspective. In other words, Hancock dared to portray these Christian folks as real people. And he did so while crafting a very entertaining story perfect for the holiday season.

Get a Life

Hancock argues that the main reasons most Hollywood filmmakers do not get Christians "right" in films is a combination of stereotypes and laziness. To them, "Christians" are a type — like "bank robber" or "town drunk." Once they come across a wild-eyed preacher on the late night cable access channel, they think they understand, and so they do not bother to dig deeper.

In The Blind Side , the Tuohys are decidedly Christian. They send their kids to Wingate Christian School. Leigh Anne identifies herself as attending a prayer group. When Michael’s mother declares Leigh Anne a "good Christian woman," Leigh Ann replies, "I try to be." But unlike most films that come out of strictly Christian production houses, where the final reel inevitably leads to an altar call, The Blind Side is content to tell the Tuohy’s story, and trusts the audience to draw the implications. Yes, the Tuohys are Christians, but they are also business people, Sean is the owner of chains of fast food restaurants, Leigh Anne is a designer and philanthropist, both are devoted (yet tough) parents. Their daughter, Collins, is a cheerleader who studies hard, and has to deal with the racist attitudes of some of her schoolmates. SJ, their son, takes a keen interest in Michael’s training, and is a wheeler-dealer when the recruiting coaches come to call. The family is well-rounded, integrated, and attractive. You can tell that faith informs their lives and, for once, it does not seem weird or out of place. Their circumstances — helping to raise Michael Oher — are extraordinary, but that is what makes for a great story: ordinary people doing an extraordinary thing.

It’s Complicated

The Christians in The Blind Side are not made out of cotton candy or cardboard. Christians are not a "type," they are people who struggle with living in the world, just like everybody else. In fact, trying to adhere to the standards of a Christian calling is a source of dramatic struggle. Shortly after Michael Oher is admitted to Wingate, a disagreement erupts between the faculty and staff over whether keeping him is a good idea. On one side are clear-eyed pragmatists who look at numeric scores and see failure — the right thing to do is to kick him out. Then there is Mrs. Beasley, Michael’s biology teacher, who sees a disadvantaged student who just needs a chance and someone to believe in him. But ultimately what gets everyone’s attention is the plaque on the wall that reminds them that Wingate is a Christian school. They exist to serve. And even though Michael Oher’s problems are substantial, as the Bible passage inscribed over the gates of the school reminds them, "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Coach Cotton is also conflicted. When he first sees Michael he has visions of a state championship. He looks on the outside and imagines that this mountainous teen is his ticket. But when Michael proves slow to learn on the gridiron, the coach’s dissatisfaction shows. He doesn’t do everything right. He is afflicted with aspirations that sometimes get in the way of treating others as God would treat them. And all that means is that he is a human being; he is real. Coach Cotton needs Leigh Anne Tuohy to come along and show him the importance of really knowing his players. Interrupting practice, she storms onto the field to have a conversation with Michael, using familiar metaphors about protection to increase his understanding of his role on the team. Needless to say, Michael exceeds expectations, and Coach Cotton learns a spiritual interpersonal lesson. As in all of life, there is growth.

Dealing with Doubts and Doing the Right Thing

The Tuohys are not saccharine saviors. There is never the sense that they wear permanent halos. Leigh Anne, in particular, can be tough, even threatening, when it is called for. When the Tuohys first bring Michael into their home they are fearful of theft. When their motives for intervening in Michael’s life are questioned by a representative from the NCAA, Leigh Anne expresses self-doubt. The Tuohys recognize the dangers of selfish ambition, and they are aware that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? " (Jeremiah 17:9). As a result, they are introspective, weighing their actions against an unyielding standard rather than on merely favorable outcomes. Living the Christian life is not a static condition, but a living drama that contains many anxious moments. The film does not shy away.

What does come across in The Blind Side — and in interviews with the real-life Tuohys — is their commitment to doing the right thing. They don’t spend a lot of time talking about it, they simply do it. Sandra Bullock, who plays Leigh Ann in the film, noticed. Skeptical of some Christians and leery of the hypocritical judgmentalism that some people who claim faith exhibit, Bullock was touched. "I’ve finally met someone who practices, but doesn’t preach…she [Leigh Anne] has no idea the path that she has begun in terms of adoption and fostering. It’s not been on the forefront of people’s minds. It is on the forefront of my mind every day now, when I get up, when I look around, I think ‘Is he? Is she? What is their situation?’ And it’s because of this family… I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith. I finally met people who walk the walk and it’s made me happy."

Faith and Works

Cinema works best when it "shows" rather than "tells." Faith, as the Apostle James notes, works the same way: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’ (James 2:14-18). If you claim to have faith, show it.

The Blind Side gives an honest, real-world, fair shake to Christians, allowing their lives to speak for themselves. We care about these people because they care about each other in the same way that all of us would like to believe ourselves capable. What makes the film even better is that it is based on a true story, where real people can serve as living examples of a lived-out faith. I wish the cast and crew all the best this holiday season. I feel as if I have received an early gift.

Maybe it is the fleeting popularity of books by atheism-advocating authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that prompted someone to greenlight an $18.5M budget for The Invention of Lying . Based on the opening week’s box office grosses, however, it might be a long time before the production company recoups its costs, if ever. Most people, it seems, do not wish to pay to have a comedian speculate that God is an elaborate ruse concocted by some people to make other people feel better about their own impending demise.

Still, films such as The Invention of Lying , like many other creative endeavors, are subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences. While I doubt that many people will ultimately see the film, those who do will be struck by a very significant question: What if the existence of God is a lie? Despite the conclusions offered by the film, people must wrestle with the question on their own. But it is interesting that The Invention of Lying cannot even consistently commit to its own argument. And there lies the opening for those willing to press the debate.

Presuppositions

The premise of The Invention of Lying involves an alternate reality in which human “evolution” – in the strictest scientific materialist sense – never progressed in such a way as to include lying. Truth-telling, it is assumed, is the evolutionary default position. So when Mark Bellison’s brain spontaneously “mutates” in response to circumstantial pressures, and develops the capacity for prevarication, it is as if he has developed a super-power.

Initially, Bellison uses his new-found ability to do what you might expect in a sophomoric comedy. Since everyone explicitly trusts what anyone says, when Bellison lies about his bank balance, where his chips are on a roulette wheel, or even the impending disaster that will ensue if a beautiful woman rejects his sexual advances, he gets (or at least gets offered) everything he wants. But one of the problems of molding the world to fit your own desires is that there are some areas of life – particularly death – that are fixed and unresponsive to argument.

So when Bellison’s mother, who is near death, expresses anxiety and fear concerning her impending demise, he decides to ease her mind by creating a fictional heaven. He tells her not to worry because she will live forever, in a glorious mansion, surrounded by all of her loved ones who preceded her in death. And like every other lie he has told, she believes him, and so do the doctors and nurses attending his mother. Soon the rumor spreads and Bellison becomes the ultimate false prophet, speaking for the “man in the sky,” proclaiming laws and judgments, a system of eternal punishments and rewards, and reaping all of the benefits that come from duping a gullible populace.

Internal Inconsistencies

Despite Gervais’ attempt to create a fictional world in which God is nothing more than a human invention (he co-wrote and co-directed the film with Matthew Robinson), a latent morality pervades the film – irrational or meaningless if there is no God. In a video posted on YouTube, Gervais admits to holding to a kind of Christian morality, despite not believing in God. This desire to place limits on himself (for example, his character Bellison is unwilling to follow through on a lie by which he tricks a woman into agreeing to have sex with him) makes no sense. Where does the moral hesitation come from? The film argues that the ability to lie automatically creates an equally illusory conscience.

Bellison knows that his claims are lies, yet he binds himself to be consistent. When he discovers that the woman of his dreams has a date with his office rival, he makes up a rule from “the man in the sky” that you can have sex only if you are married. But when the woman offers him a coupon for “birthday sex,” instead of changing the rule, or codifying an exception to suit himself, he maintains fidelity to his apparent disadvantage.

If there really is no transcendent order imposed by God on human behavior, if there is no coming judgment where all will give account for their actions, then morality is nothing more than a fiction created by the powerful within a culture. Even if one argued that morality “evolved” to serve the species, once we “progressed” to the point that we grasped that morality was not universal and transcendent, but was instead just “made up,” we would be free from its power and able to do whatever we desired. We would become Nietzsche’s Superman, not Gervais’ false romantic moralist. As C.S. Lewis notes in The Abolition of Man, the only thing that would undergird any moral action would be impulse.

Gervais wants to have all the benefits of a truly moral world: real love, binding commitment, even self-sacrifice for a beloved, but he wants to have it without the foundation on which it rests. As Lewis would say, Gervais wants to “remove the organ” yet “demand the function.” Everyone recognizes that atheists committed to a scientific-materialist view of the world can be loving parents and moral people. They simply cannot philosophically ground their reasons for doing so in any way that would make love and morality objectively true or culturally binding.

Gervais also cannot resist making a nod to eternity even as he is denying it. In a poignant scene after his mother’s death, Bellison sits in front of her grave. He says that he knows that she is not in a mansion, but is still in the ground. Still, he speaks to her as if she is still alive, pouring out to her his unhappiness. The idea of speaking to the dead inconsistent with a belief that once we die we face oblivion. Even the existence of graveyards and memorials speaks to honoring the dead – a nonsensical idea if we are nothing but a great cosmic accident where honor is an emotional fiction, and purpose is extinguished with life (which, if true, undermines the very idea of purpose).

Drama makes sense only in a world where moral actions have real consequences. Any other world would not ring true to the viewer. Ultimately, film cannot wholly abandon eternity or morality because they are written on our hearts by God (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:15). By trying to have it both ways – wanting the hero to succeed while doing right but at the same time denying the existence of a transcendent morality – the film becomes muddled and unsatisfying. But that does not mean that the film is wholly without value. It can serve as a conversation starter, assuming Christians are ready to explain and defend their reasons for believing.

A Rational Faith Response

The kinds of arguments made in recent books that champion atheism, and in recent films that presuppose it, would never gain traction in a culture that was biblically literate. Part of the problem stems from the lack of disciple-making in Christendom. The Catholic Church still catechizes, but many “cradle Catholics” have a weak understanding of their own faith. Protestants — even in Evangelical circles -– frequently do not advance in their theological thinking beyond merely "making a decision for Christ," and as a result many lack proper faith foundations. Both are vulnerable to the doubt-inducing cynicism of films like The Invention of Lying and The Da Vinci Code . We cannot expect to answer back to those who have seen such films, and have either embraced their a-theology or been troubled by it, unless we have disciplined ourselves to study, and prepared our minds to give a reasoned response.

The first step in solving the problem is admitting the deficit and then making the decision to remedy it. If you like C.S. Lewis, two good books with which to begin are Mere Christianity and his excellent work on the reality of the supernatural, Miracles . G.K. Chesterton provides an excellent rationale for his own conversion in Orthodoxy , and goes deeper in The Everlasting Man . Those wishing a more philosophical approach might consider Protestant Francis Schaeffer’s The God Who is There , and He is There and Is Not Silent or theologian J.P. Moreland’s Love God With All Your Mind or the Catholic Peter Kreeft’s Handbook Of Christian Apologetics or Fundamentals of the Faith .

Christians, above all people, have a deadly serious stake in the truth of our message. For as the Apostle Paul noted, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). The good news, as Paul reports in the next verse, is “but now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” The antidote to the lie is now, as it has always been, a confident expression of the truth. We need to study it, learn it, and proclaim it. Giving in to modern-day atheist propaganda is not an option. Stand firm and always be “ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

Note: The Invention of Lying is rated PG-13 for some discussions of sexually-related material and profanity.

It is far too early to write the memoirs of Mark Whitacre, the subject of the bio-pic The Informant! Whitacre was the youngest division president ever at Archer Daniels Midland – a huge corporation. A biochemist by training, when a chemical process at the plant goes bad and the division starts losing piles of money, he concocts a sabotage story to cover his trail. And that happens draw in the FBI. Moving from the proverbial frying pan, Whitacre explains to FBI Special Agent Brian Sheppard that ADM is actually involved in international price fixing. Thus begins his multi-year stint as an undercover informant for the FBI, while simultaneously running the very company he is in the process of bringing down.

Without revealing too much, it is important to note that Whitacre is not the squeaky-clean do-gooder that his carefully crafted image suggests. Director Steven Soderbergh slowly reveals the ego- and avarice-driven nature of the man. Ultimately, Whitacre serves a stint in the pen. What keeps audiences laughing (though based on a true story, the film is shot as a comedy) is Whitacre’s utter cluelessness about his situation.

Like many other bio-pics, The Informant! ends with descriptions of where the main characters are today. For Whitacre, the twist is ironic. But it is the rest of the story, the part that Soderbergh leaves out, that is truly worth telling, though it does not lend itself to comedy. My guess is that Soderbergh did not think the revelation would play as well with his intended audience. While in prison, Whitacre had thoughts of suicide. Then he gave his life to Jesus Christ. But when I discovered that little tid-bit in the latest issue of World Magazine, it radically changed the way I viewed the film.

The laughter generated by the movie stems from our amazement that a guy so smart, so privileged, would allow himself to be caught up in so much wrongdoing. I suppose that egotistical filmgoers might rationalize and think that they would never have been stupid enough to get caught. Others, I hope, think that there but by the grace of God go I — maybe not on the same scale as Whitacre, but just as guilty of various sins.

Whitacre’s confession that his time in prison was integral to establishing his faith would have been a lesson worth enacting on the screen — even as a coda at the end of the film. Sometimes, people who are guilty curse their fate when they are caught, even blame God for allowing them to go down a dark road. But often it is the time we spend in darkness that enables our feeble eyes to see the light. Instead of having a fleeting voyeuristic laugh at Mark Whitacre’s self-inflicted troubles, perhaps a glimpse at his redemption through Christ would have had more lasting value.

The Informant! is rated R for a substantial amount of boardroom profanity.