Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

Hello, Faithful Reader!

If you've been following along at Crosswalk this past month, you already know my/our picks for best movies of 2011. 

But what about the man who taught me everything he knows about film and acting during our days together back on Bison Hill (that's Oklahoma Baptist University for the unedumacated)? What did my good friend Scott Bartley, a self-described "movie bigot," think of this year's offerings? 

Scott has the wonderful gift of criticism, and I've told him as much, and I mean that in the best possible way. He can quickly sample something and ascertain and communicate its artistic merits on many levels. To that end, he has created a blogsite called Fields of Bartley from which he looks at all manner of pop culture, including this Sunday night's Oscar telecast...

***

Scott’s Oscar Extravaganza

Well kids, it’s that time of year again. Time for Hollywood to honor its best and brightest with the Academy Awards, aka The Oscars. I was glad I was asked to weigh in on the topic, since I am somewhat of an expert on the matter. But before I begin my ruminations on the prestigious program, a little bit of disclosure is necessary. I am a self-proclaimed movie snob. An elitist, a movie bigot if you will. And I have been most of life. This has brought much mockery and derision upon me at times, but I must stay true to my principles. Because of this snobbery, typically I tend to agree with the opinions of the pretentious Movie Critic, rather than side with John Q. Public. With that out of the way, off we go!

My relationship status with the Oscars has changed quite a bit over the last few decades. When my wife and I had no kiddies, we often hosted lavish parties, inviting a privileged few over to snack and enjoy the show. One year was even a black tie affair, and I dusted off my tux. But since our darling little daughters have arrived, things have changed. For most of the 2000’s, we hardly saw new movies. And the ones we saw were typically animated. But thankfully, as the girls have aged the past few years, we have begun to venture out to the theater more, and watching the Oscars has become fun again. However, there will be no fancy-schmancy party this year -- maybe a few friends over, who will probably leave well before the ceremony is over, because we are old, tired people now. Don’t despair -- thanks to the DVR we will still see all of the show.

So what are my thoughts on this year’s picks? I’m glad you asked. I’ll give you my thoughts on each of the Best Picture nominees, and after you read them, I will be open to ridicule once again.

The Artist- This seems to be the favorite right now. But guess what? I didn’t see it! It only played in my town a few weeks, and when I attempted to persuade my lovely bride to go see it, I was met with, “Ugh. A silent movie? No thanks.” So someday I’ll see it. Projected to be the Winner.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close- Didn’t see this one either. Really had no desire to. I went with the critics, who weren’t overwhelmed by it. I like Tom Hanks, but he’s not in much of it. And it has Sandra Bullock, who is NOT one of my favorites.

The Tree of Life- OK, I didn’t see this one either, but I promise I’ve seen all of the rest. Never been a big fan of Terrance Malick; not sure where the love comes from.

War Horse- Probably my least favorite of the nominated films. One of the main factors that determine whether or not I like a movie (or book, play, etc) is that I have to establish a connection with the characters. I have to really be invested in them and care about them. And there was no one in this movie to do that with. Horses are nice, but I had zero connection. It looked great! And Spielberg is a genius. But this movie? Meh.

Midnight in Paris- Surprisingly, being a movie snob, I’ve never been a big fan of Woody Allen. However, I did find this movie to be quite enjoyable. Being a former English major, I loved all of the obscure literary references. And the performances were all solid. But I really don’t think it should be up here for Best Picture.

Moneyball- Most of my friends know that I am not a fan of baseball. But I did find the story in this film to be somewhat fascinating. And it had strong performances, as well as smart writing. But in the end, I really didn’t connect with Brad Pitt’s character. Good film, not great.

The Help- I resisted seeing this movie for a long time. My wife had read the book, and she went and saw it. And although many people told me I should see it, the movie bigot inside me dismissed it as a chick flick. But over Christmas break, I finally succumbed, and watched it. I was very glad I did. Wonderful performances, great story, and even some great lines for quoting (which I will not do here). I highly recommend it.

Hugo- I have not given in to the 3D craze. The films I’ve seen in 3D were a waste of money. But I was told that this movie should be seen in 3D, so I gave in. It is truly a visual feast. Scorsese finally makes full use of the medium, and it is, at times, breathtaking. But it’s not just eye candy - it’s also a great story, filled with remarkable characters. My only complaint is it’s a little too long. But still great.

The Descendants- This is my choice for Best Picture. It has everything: a great script, wonderful scenery, and performances that vacillate between heartbreaking and hilarious. I have loved most of Alexander Payne’s films. And George Clooney, who I dismissed early in his career as just another pretty-boy actor, delivers a masterful performance, which I also believe is Oscar-worthy.

Here’s a quick rundown of what should (I believe), and what will win...

Best Picture- Should Win: The Descendants    Will Win: The Artist (Really??)

Best Actor-    Should Win: George Clooney (He’s so dreamy)     Will Win: Jean Dujardin (Really??)

Best Actress- Should Win- Meryl Streep           Will Win: Viola Davis

Best Supporting Actor-  Should and Will Win: Christopher Plummer

Best Supporting Actress- Should and Will Win: Octavia Spencer

Best Director-  Should Win: Alexander Payne    Will Win: Michel Hazanavicius (Really??)

Cinematography- Should and Will Win: Hugo

Animated Film- Should Win: Kung Fu Panda 2 (Ska-doosh!)  Will Win: Rango

Original Song- Should and Will Win: “Man or Muppet”

So there you have it. My 2 cents. What do you think, friends? Do you agree? Think I’m crazy? Feel free to sound off - as long as you don’t resort to name calling. And hopefully I’ll be back next year, talking about how The Dark Knight Rises will sweep all of the awards for 2012.

***

(Oh, and one disclaimer about why The Artist is completely absent from Crosswalk's Top 10 Movies of 2011 list -- hardly any members of our eight-person voting panel had the chance to see either that or Extremely Loud Incredibly Close before press time!)

Update: Unfortunately, my previously promised live blog of the telecast isn't going to happen. I've come down with a nasty cold that, as soon as the Nyquill kicks in, will have me sleeping before the stars are off the red carpet... :-(

Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

The Friday before Valentine's Day, I took my lovely wife Valerie to see the new movie The Vow, starring Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum in a story of perfect love gone wrong through amnesia. We'd known the movie was based on real events, but, even if we hadn't, we would have learned as much upon the screen early in the film.

We thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even if the theater was packed with what seemed like a hundred teenage girls commenting and texting through most of it. At least they got a nice lesson in what committed love looks like. Valerie and I liked it on several levels. Not only was it a good date movie, the kind where a couple can ask each other over frozen yogurt afterwards, "What if that were us? What if I didn't remember loving you? What would you do?", but it also stuck with us in other ways. First, on a simple, concrete level, you don't see many movies where love conquers all and marriage vows are viewed as sacred anymore. That was pretty cool. But on another level, well, to explain how I felt about it on another level, allow me to skip ahead in my week a little bit...

On Monday, we were asked if anyone from Crosswalk Movies or our sister site TheFish had seen The Vow and would like to comment on a piece for FOXNews.com. 

I took Jo Piazza's questions via email:

• I am interested in what you think of God being completely excised from The Vow.
• Are you upset that Hollywood took the Christian elements out of the story?
• Do you think it remains a Christian movie?

I responded:

Not having studied the real-life story of the Carpenters before seeing the film, I wasn’t aware when I viewed it that God was part of the original story and had been excised. That said, in my opinion, God is a huge part of The Vow, albeit metaphorically (which I much prefer to in-your-face, anyway). The love with which Leo pursues Paige, even after she no longer really remembers or even wants him, is the tireless love with which God pursues His people. Leo accepts Paige for who she is, meets her where she is. Loves her enough to allow her to reject him. His promises are unbreakable. These are the same phrases Christians often use to describe God to others. I’m not saying Leo is necessarily a God-figure (he’s not perfect, after all), but the same picture the Bible paints about the marriage God created between Christ and His Church is the one we see playing out between Leo and Paige in this movie.

So, I don’t think Hollywood did effectively take the Christian elements out of this movie (look at the numbers of Christians who are flocking to see it; something is resonating with them. On Crosswalk this week our review and feature about The Vow currently rank 3rd and 4th among our most popular articles). And I think the term “Christian movie” (or book, or song) is a relative one, anyway. I myself consider the Harry Potter series and Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree “Christian books” because of the themes I happily find there more than because of any intent or belief on part of the authors.

The story posted on FOXNews Thursday (you can read it here). While I agree with the Carpenters that it would have been nice to have their faith remain in the story, I just can't allow myself, for reasons stated above, to get very upset that it wasn't. To my mind, it was like God refused to be excused from the proceedings of which He had initially been part. How could He be if faith in Him informed the decisions and commitments displayed in the original tale? 

Incidentally, I've also heard some concern about the movie's PG-13 rating for "sexual content, partial nudity and some language." I do understand that most people - myself included - would prefer these things be left aside, but the cautions makes it sound worse than it is. I for one can completely forgive a husband who wakes up groggy and forgets he's naked (we only see his backside) in front of his wife, who views him as essentially a stranger. I'll admit - I laughed, as did Valerie. Neither did it offend us to see the married couple, in a flashback scene, wake up next to each other in bed, covered by a sheet, their backs bare. I will grant that one scene is played for harshness to show how frustrated Paige has become with her interminable situation. With loud music blaring, at her wits' end, she lets fly with a "GD" at Leo. It does take you aback. Leo's response, however, that "we don't talk to each other like that," reminds both Paige and the viewer that love is gentle and has no place for such talk. It's effective. All that to say, don't miss out on a wonderful picture of what real marriage and what Christ's marriage to the Church look like unless what I've just described in this paragraph is completely intolerable to you. As with most great stories, the point and the purpose are so much bigger than the imperfections.

See also:

• Did Hollywood Weaken The Vow? by Jim Daly
• The Vow Explores a Love That Endures by Christa Banister
• Real-life Couple from The Vow Says it 'Would Have Been Nice' to See Christian References in Film, by Jo Piazza

Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

At the beginning of 2011, we began to see articles coming across the newswire from film festivals mentioning how faith was going to be a trending topic in movies this year. And indeed, two of the films in our Top 10—Of Gods and Men and TheTree of Life—are very much about belief, the first in a much more concrete way, the second via the more abstract. Furthermore, in The Help one will find scenes of biblical preaching and church community, and in Hugo there are several meaningful quotes about our purpose in this world that will ring true to a Christian ear. But the faith-in-film train made several other stops along the way this past year, and we would be remiss not to make some mention of them.

First, there were the ones you heard of, the ones you may have seen, the ones that were the most up-front about Christianity, beginning with Courageous. For some Crosswalk readers, this may have been the only film you saw in theaters this year. And you sure let us know how disappointed you were that we didn’t give it our most glowing review. But the Sherwood Pictures folks have improved with every new installment, and we wholeheartedly appreciate that cinematic art is being produced by Christians, whether it grabbed us personally or not. Beyond Courageous, Soul Surfer, Machine Gun Preacher and There Be Dragons were all based on three very different testimonies of three very different believers.

Then there were the ones you may have missed, that either passed so quietly or were independent films that didn’t receive a lot of fanfare, but which still dealt with faith in one way or another. In The Way, Martin Sheen plays the role of a father who is finishing the job of walking “The Way of Saint James” in Europe for his departed son. Eternal lessons of life and a faith journey are at the heart of the golf-centric movie Seven Days in Utopia. Tyrannosaur features an unemployed, angry widower with a drinking problem who meets a Christian worker at a charity shop, a respectable, wholesome woman who seems to be his guardian angel. Martha Marcy May Marlene is a psychological thriller about a woman trying to live a normal life after fleeing a cult. And Salvation Boulevard, starring Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, is a satire about a charming evangelical preacher in a small Western town who, sadly, may have ulterior motives (fittingly, this last entry received the worst reviews by far of all the films in this paragraph).

Not every film about faith is worth seeing, but when faith is present in a film it both sparks conversations and is there because conversations are already happening. Here’s hoping we see more of it in 2012.

Find out what Crosswalk editors and film critics picked as our Top 10 Movies of 2011

Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

We all know that patience isn't easy, or fun. What it is, though, is the path of the wise. Or, perhaps it's better to say the "non-path," since it usually involves a decision to do nothing for a while, to be still and know that you are not God, to reflect, or to strategize.

I recently gained new insight into the value of patience and the reason it's prized so highly in the Bible, from verses about "those who wait on the Lord" to "letting endurance have its perfect result."

In the first half of 2010 I raced through a blog of the TV show LOST. The series is replete with Christo-religious metaphors and parallels. One such area it studies in detail is patience. Early on, one of the characters tells another that "Patience, which you lack, is the quality of a leader." It almost flew right by me, like it did the first time. Patience? The quality of a leader? Does that sound right? Not really, not to today's ears. Don't we usually think of leaders as people who make immediate, command decisions, rush into action, tell others what to do, and make people feel safe (which is to say, how they think they need to feel)?

That's part of it; however, those are the very flaws about the concept that plagued most of the characters on LOST. They were so driven to do, fix, run, save, correct, fight, and prove themselves that they often didn't take time to actually ponder the next step or, even better, to wait for the next step to present itself. Their lack of wisdom in making rush decisions and actions was obvious to the audience. We kept wondering why they couldn't remember the miracles they'd already seen, why they couldn't reflect on what they'd already come through, the amazing ways they'd been granted second chances, the redemption they'd been given despite not deserving it, the way they kept longing for home while failing to realize they were building a new one (if they could have just slowed down and seen it).

As I watched it all unfold, I was reminded of the children of Israel. Granted, 40 years in a desert would be a long time to wait for anything, particularly a promised new home. So they grumbled. They longed for the old ways, even though those meant bondage and servitude. They failed to stop and understand that the miracles of manna and the Red Sea meant more were on the way - at the right time. They nagged their leadership, sought unproductive solutions, and just like the characters on LOST, were plagued by always feeling they had to do something, to take control.

The paradox is that control is indeed involved, but it's self-control instead of situational control. Relax. Quiet yourself. Let's remember where we came from and the amazing ways we passed through peril for a while. Let's reflect on the present - the fact we're here - and how amazing the Lord is. Let's ponder our future steps before rushing up them and tripping.

Patience - the "strengthening of the heart" James refers to - then is directly related to another fruit of the Spirit, self-control. Self-control thus leads to maturity, which is completeness, which is wisdom, which is leadership, which is purpose, which is ministry, which is being used of God, which is where we see miracles again. Full-circle we come, eventually, when we patiently wait on the Lord, who is never late and perpetually victorious.

Situational control may provide temporary satisfaction, but it also often makes a situation worse. Patience is a willing temporary dissatisfaction, but it puts your emotions under control and God in control. It might make a situation feel like it's not getting better, but the solution can only be miraculous with it as part of the equation. Patience prevents rash judgment, and judgmentalism. It secures a plan. It is a beautiful paradox of being a non-action and yet a conscious exercise of free will. It is the basis for the merciful ways the Lord deals with us. Patience provides the path in proper time, and promises that faith will be rewarded.

Practice patience this week by seeking not to pursue control in one particularly vexing portion of your life, and ponder whether it's indeed your problem to solve in the first place. Start by remembering the miracle of how God got your attention and delivered you, and his promise that the great work he began in you will not remain incomplete, no matter how long it takes. What miracle will be next? Wait and see. "You will know that I am the LORD; Those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame (Isaiah 49:23)."

Further Reading

Galatians 5:22
Hebrews 6:12
1 Corinthians 4:5
Isaiah 40:31