ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Books

21 Things You Forgot About Being a Kid: Learning from the Next Generation

by Leave a Comment

What can we learn from the generations coming up after us? Dr. Rick Stevenson shares what he has learned after nearly twenty years of interviewing children and adolescents.

21 Things book cover

I was introduced to Rick Stevenson through Greg Wright, a long-time internet friend and mentor. Greg was my boss for most of the time I was writing for Hollywood Jesus – somewhere back in the Dark Ages. (It’s hard to believe I left HJ nearly four and a half years ago.) Greg had introduced me to the Millennials documentary series which was shown on the Ovation network in 2016. Screenfish was kind enough to let us share my interview with Greg and my subsequent review of the documentary.

In 2001, Rick created the 5000 Days Project, which the website tells us

is a global organization dedicated to developing emotional intelligence (EQ). We apply the StoryQ method of deep inquiry combined with video journaling technology to bring a low-cost and easy-to-implement tool into schools and communities allowing all kids to self-reflect and process in a safe environment.

As of the book’s release as an ebook in July, Rick has “conducted over 5500 in-depth interviews” with school-age children up to high school. The Project stresses the importance of Social and Emotional Intelligence, and was developed in consultation with experts in the fields, including Stevenson’s friend Dr. John Medina, author of the Brain Rules series.

Coming from a conservative Christian environment, I have long been aware of the need to get a handle on my emotions so they do not rule me. Unfortunately, I think too many in conservative circles have misunderstood the role of emotions in our lives. Too often a stoic approach is taken, ignoring one’s emotions rather than dealing with them. What often seems to happen is that the hidden emotions are still controlling the person, largely because they refuse to acknowledge the effect emotions play in shaping our lives. For example, if you are making choices based on fear, and you refuse to acknowledge you have those fears, you end up making excuses for your beliefs and actions instead of honestly examining the role this emotion has played in shaping your beliefs and actions. Xenophobia can often be excused in this way. How often have we witnessed someone who has obvious prejudices insist they are not prejudiced?

Rick’s book helps us remember what it was like to be a kid, and that remembrance can be the start of understanding who we are. It can also help us better understand those around us. According to Jesus, our mission here on earth can be summed up in two commands: Love God, and Love one another. The agape love the Bible speaks about is not emotionless. It is more than an emotion, as it seeks the best for the one loved, but the concept does include emotion. Jesus’ mission on earth was to show us what God is like. The Gospels continuously tell us that Jesus was filled with compassion for for those around Him. His actions on behalf of others was not some kind of calculated stoic response based on some mathematical calculation of what is best for the person. His actions were precipitated by an emotional response to the need He witnessed.

We have gotten emotions exactly backwards. Some of us were even taught to make the brain the engine and the heart the caboose. That is not how it works. (See the animation video near the bottom of the page on The 5000 Days Project’s home page.) Putting the emotions in a “caboose” role causes us to ignore what our emotions are trying to tell us. Only by knowing what our heart is telling us can we examine who we really are. Certainly our emotions can be lying to us, but we cannot know that unless we are listening to them and examining them. As I asserted earlier, our emotions will still lead us whether we acknowledge them or not.

If any of the above has sparked an interest in Emotional Intelligence, or causes you to want to try to understand yourself and others better, Rick’s book would be a good place to start. Broken down into 21 quickly-read and easily-digested chapters, 21 Things You Forgot About Being a Kid is a delight to read. Be sure also to read the Foreword and Introduction, as these provide background and insight into what is to follow. 21 Things is available as an ebook on Amazon.com. (If you don’t have Kindle, you can download the PC or Android versions for free.)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone: The Boy Who Was Lucky #TBT

by Leave a Comment

Given that this year marks the twentieth anniversary of the publication of the first Harry Potter novel (well… it had already been published in the UK in 1997, but the US version didn’t come out until 1998), it seems fitting to go back and watch the films that were such an integral part of my childhood.  So how well does the movie that first introduced me to the Boy Who Lived hold up?  Looking at it through the eyes of an adult, some things do not hold up quite as well as others.

I’m sure the basics of the story are known to most: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is orphaned as a baby and raised by the insufferable Dursley family, only to be told at the age of eleven that he is, in fact, the son of a witch and a wizard. Thus, he is also a wizard and invited to be a student at the prestigious Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.  There, not only does he meet his future fast friends Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), but he also discovers that his parents were killed by the evilest wizard in all magical history, Lord Voldemort, and that there may be someone at the school who wants to kill him, too.

I can’t help but feel that Harry is more of a reactive character than a proactive one here.  I feel for him when he first meets the other wizards and they all praise him and are in awe him as the Boy Who Lived, and yet he doesn’t understand why.  After all, as far as he knows, it was luck that saved him from Voldemort’s wrath.  It was luck that brings him to Hogwarts, through no merit of his own.  When Harry wins his first Quidditch game by catching the Snitch, how does he do it?  Through luck.  Even when he confronts the duplicitous Professor Quirrell, it is through sheer luck that he defeats him, without even really intending to.  In other words, it never feels that Harry actually does anything.   Things happen to him and Harry reacts, but as a character, he remains rather static.

This makes Harry himself kind of the most uninteresting character in his own origin story, with Radcliffe adequately laughing and/or staring incredulously at things but never being given much of a chance to shine.  Watson’s vivacious Hermione and Grint’s whiny but affable Ron often steal the spotlight and as characters, fare much better.  I love that Hermione’s know-it-all attitude and Ron’s stalwart loyalty come in to play during the final “battles”.  It is clear from the outset that the threesome’s friendship is at the heart and soul of the series and the emotional climax of the film is the spectacularly staged Wizard’s Chess game, in which Ron’s brave sacrifice makes Harry’s subsequent face-off with Quirrell feel anticlimactic in comparison.  Indeed, this film raises the standard for the themes of courage, loyalty, friendship, and love that dominate the series, even while I also have misgivings about the children’s almost immediate lack of respect for authority or their knack for breaking the rules (and getting away with it, usually).

The Harry Potter series have become famous as a veritable who’s who of notable British thespians and the first film sets the stage in grand fashion, with Alan Rickman’s oily Professor Snape and Richard Harris’ quietly authoritative Professor Dumbledore as the standouts.  Curiously, I find the special effects to be rather hit or miss here.  The Quidditch match is fantastic and is a highlight of the film, but the troll and Scruffy the three-headed dog look unconvincing, especially in a film from the same year when the Balrog and the cave troll wowed audiences in The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

All in all, the first Harry Potter is a mixed bag.  It is a little long and adheres almost painfully to the original source material.  Certain plot points don’t hold together, such as the titular MacGuffin…I mean, the Philosopher’s Stone… I mean, the Sorcerer’s Stone, in that a great deal is made about it, but in the end, it doesn’t really amount to anything other than a plot device.

I do appreciate the fact that the film allows most of the magic to be just that…magic.   Most things, such as the Mirror of Erised or the Cloak of Invisibility or ninety percent of the things you see in Diagon Alley, are never explained how or why they work and I am okay with that.  I like that most of the magical elements are taken at face value and are simply a part of the mystery of the wizarding world.  However, I am not going to get into the debate as to whether watching movies that promote magic and the use thereof is harmful or beneficial for children.  That I leave to others.

I will say that, while this is an entertaining, creative, it is surprisingly dark and frightening at times (the scene with the dead unicorn springs to mind) and thus should probably only be enjoyed by more mature younger viewers.  It is not always morally strong either, but at the very least, it provides springboards for discussion and it is most certainly consistently visually impressive, well-acted and imaginative.

Why I Love (and Fear) Jordan Peterson & Russell Brand

by Leave a Comment

Jordan Peterson and Russell Brand

tldr version

Jordan Peterson
and Russell Brand
both see a
current crisis
and both see it as
primarily “spiritual”

however, for each,
there are issues
when it comes to how
*truth*
and “spirituality” relate

and how they relate
is vital

bit longer version

fanboying

i love me some
Peterson and Brand

always generally dug
Brand’s flicks
and standup,
and have been a
fan of his podcast/YouTube
for a year plus

(fun fact:
the pic above is
from once when
Peterson went
on said podcast;
and don’t they look
smashing together?
🙂 )

Peterson came to
my attention
more gradually,
but then like a
hurricane recently –
seriously:
give him a Google
and marvel at the
moment he’s been having

i have Recovery and
12 Rules for Life
on my bedside table
(along with some more
explicitly Christiany books
and a tablet, upon which
i theoretically read,
but mainly just
obsess over guitar gear
i don’t really need)

both are excellent texts
and both feel
supremely plugged in
to a zeitgeisty sense
that something’s amiss,
in general,
with ppl rn

(i agree)

both also,
and both men
in their public lives,
propose something
like a
spiritual cause
for this
“something amiss” –
what might be called a
“spiritual crisis of meaning”
stemming from
God
(or something like God;
more on this later)
no longer holding
significant sway
for so many

(i agree for sure)

caveating

please note here
that these gentlemen
are obv far more complex
than i’m making
them seem, as is
this whole topic
(and i’m not
even addressing
their politics);
i’m attempting to
essentialize here;
i considered deep diving,
but am refraining
for the sake of brevity
and also because i’m
kind of lazy

in any case, here are
some decent articles
related to this post;
go ahead and Google –
there’s plenty more:

“Jordan Peterson vs. Russell Brand”

“The religious hunger that drives Jordan Peterson’s fandom”

“Is Dr. Jordan Peterson A Gateway Drug to Christianity, Or Just A Highbrow Joel Osteen?”

here are two of my own,
also related:

“Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God”

“What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story “Means”)”

problematizing

but here’s the problem:
as much as i *love*
Peterson and Brand’s
respective approaches
to the significance
of the spiritual,
i *fear* that
neither approaches
*truth* sufficiently

what do i mean?

well, with Brand,
the issue appears to be
lack of specificity –
many manifestations
of spirituality
might address the
problems he sees
(note that his book
is based on the 12-steps,
which speaks of “God,
as we understand him”)

and while this is
well and good to a point,
of course,
in the end,
truth commonly understood
is *specific* and *exclusive*
by its nature,
and not addressing this,
it seems to me,
is a problem

for Peterson,
the issue is confusing
*truth*
with something like
“what works”

he tells us to live by a
certain ethic
and seek a certain meaning
grounded in
certain Jungian archetypes,
not because it is true
or because the
archetypes are –
at least not in
the usual
historical/correspondence
way generally meant –
but because it
just happens to reflect
how things have gone
re: humans
when it comes to
our psychology
from an
evolutionary perspective;
it is what is and
therefore what “works”
and therefore “true”

again, all well and good
to attach some
functionality to truth,
of course,
perhaps,
but conflating the two,
it seems to me,
is a problem

also, this is why
Peterson kind of
dodges/ducks/complicates
the question he’s
often asked:
“do you believe in God;”
he may or may not,
but he definitely
does not think of
that question primarily
as it relates to *truth*
commonly understood

finning

and so:
when it comes to
Peterson and Brand,
i love them,
but i also fear them

i find them both
engaging and articulate
and brilliant, etc.,
and *correct;*
but, concerningly,
on this point,
only to a point

i want people to
hear their message(s) –
i know good can come
of it –
but i fear ill may too

i see them as
important,
*prophetic* even
in this current moment –
both have
cut through the mix
in a way that’s so
unusual anymore,
given the noise –
but probably only
“part way down the path”
to the true destination
they both seem to
have glimpsed
(or, better,
which has glimpsed them):

not God
“as we understand him,”
not a “God” that
simply works,
but the *true* God

the true God
as He really is

 

When the English Fall – Post-Apocalyptic Tale through Amish Eyes

by Leave a Comment

In post-apocalyptic fiction we are used to seeing the dystopian aftermath. Gangs, lawlessness, greed, violence. When the English Falls by David Williams has all that, but it is on the periphery of the story. At the center is a man of faith trying to understand what God is calling him, his family, and his community to be and to do.

The book is in the form of a journal kept by an Amish farmer and carpenter named Jacob. He and his family live in rural Pennsylvania. His daughter is troubled by seizures and dreams that may be prophetic. Jacob is uneasy about keeping the journal because it seems vain and prideful. However, he feels the need to continue to better understand himself.

When the journal begins, the only stress is his daughter’s illness. But one evening there is a massive aurora borealis and in the aftermath all electronics and most of the machines in the world are disabled. That is only a minor inconvenience for the Amish community, because they have so little of those things. But as the days progress life in the cities becomes very difficult. At first the farmers send food to the cities, but even that cannot keep up with the shortages. Soon there is news of violence—first in the cities, then working its way out into the country. Soon that violence comes very close indeed.

The Amish do not feel justified by their lifestyle—thinking how smart it seems now to have eschewed most technology. Rather they understand that they have responsibilities to the world around them. When the middleman who sells Jacob’s furniture shows up with his family, Jacob takes him into his home, even though it will cause his own family to have less. As the violence comes closer and closer, some of the non-Amish local farmers form their own militia to try to prevent looting and theft. They would surely protect their Amish neighbors, but the Amish feel uncomfortable in “safety” that is found in violence, even if they are not being violent.

Jacob often reflects his own questions about how this could happen, but it is always in the context of his faith. And it is a dynamic faith that calls him to act selflessly in the face of both violence and the needs of others. As the story progresses (it takes place over about three months), he and the others in his community will be faced with difficult decisions. The question they are most likely to ask is what is it God wants them to do in these troubled times. And they know from their decision to live the simple life of the Amish way that God does not make their life easy. But to live any other way would be to fail to live as they believe God has called them. In those actions they redefine what we may think of as heroism in a dystopian world.

The Dark Tower Ending Explained

by 1 Comment

screenfish matt hill dark tower
[there be SPOILERS ahead,
may it do ya fine]

yesterday i finished
sai Stephen King’s
The Dark Tower series –
entered the clearing
at the end of that path

it took me right around a year,
all told;
i think the longest extended
narrative i’ve ever read

by way of a mini-review:
i dug it 🙂

i’m a fan of King
and his style,
and the story here is
obv epic in scope,
full of wonders, adventure,
humor, tragedy,
characters you can relate to,
ones you wish you couldn’t,
and, ultimately,
it MEANS something
(more on that soon)

it was not perfect,
certainly –
many sections
and even entire books
got to be a bit of a slog
(like the characters’
journeys themselves),
there were build ups
to ultimate let downs,
promises not kept imo,
digressions, confusions, etc.,
much of which may be
due to the series’
long, fascinating
actual history
(which you can google) –
but in the end, for me,
it was worth the trip
for sure

saying more would only
hold up what i
mainly intend to say:

The Dark Tower Ending Explained

so what does the
series
and its ending
mean?

for such a long,
complex tale,
and such a
seemingly tricky question,
it’s surprisingly simple

The Dark Tower is
a story about stories

what about stories?

they end.

they themselves
inevitably reach
the clearing
at the end of the path.

to shoot straighter:
stories resolve.

King himself,
near the end of Book 7,
the last,
even cheekily
chides the reader
for needing
an ending,
basically daring us
not to read on;
but nevertheless,
he gives us the end
as he knows he must

and, also, as well,
the specific end he gives,
in context,
underlines the point:
stories resolve

see, The Dark Tower
is about how
“there are other worlds
than these;”
about, basically,
“the multiverse” –
the idea that
there are
different worlds,
and also that the lives
of the different
people within them
(including those of
King himself and
his decades-deep
cast of characters)
are somehow
actually happening together,
intertwined in space/time

sitting at
multiverse center?
the Dark Tower itself –
the nexus of all worlds

a knight errant –
Roland Deschain,
the gunslinger,
the main character –
is destined by ka
to seek this tower
and reach the
room at its summit;
the series tells
of this quest

at the end of Book 7,
the coda,
Roland reaches the
top of the tower,
only to walk through
a door
(and back in time)
to the opening line
of Book 1:

“The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.”

in other words,
the multiverse
is not only made
of many worlds,
it also apparently
runs in many cycles –
the “end” is
just the beginning

but, however,
most ultimately importantly,
just as the many worlds
of the multiverse
converge on the one spot,
one thing for Roland
is different
in this one new cycle
that begins at the end:
he has an item
(the Horn of Eld,
though the specifics
probably aren’t
what’s important)
which promises
the possibility
of a final and last cycle –
an actual end,
the inevitable resolution

So What?

great question 🙂

one this post
won’t address

but i encourage you
to ask more deeply:

why do stories resolve?

why must they?

why must we humans
tell them –
all of them variations
of the same
resolving tale,
over and over?

(for a bit of
my personal take, see:
“What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story ‘Means’)”

here’s a hint:
it has something to do
with Gan (God),
commala come you)

in any case,
long days
and pleasant nights
to ya –
till you too
reach the clearing

 

Deadpool’s Joe Kelly Tells Own Story in I Kill Giants

by Leave a Comment

Joe Kelly is a prolific comic book writer, with credits on the extended mythos of Deadpool, Daredevil, Superman, and others. But he also penned the graphic novels, Four Eyes and I Kill Giants. which connect the everyday world of our expectations with fantasy-infused realities to create colorful, inventive worlds where our worst fears take on different shapes. Now, I Kill Giants is going where Kelly’s ‘other’ creation, TV’s Ben 10, hasn’t gone: the big screen.

Kelly most enjoys working on his own projects like Four Eyes or Bad Dog that he’s written for Image. But he’s also retooled some of the biggest names in comics for DC and Marvel. Still, he grew up reading horror comics that he was gifted by his uncle, and hopes to one day rework the story of The Spectre… even while he’s already written his childhood hero, Spider-man. Now, he’s about to reach a new audience with another angst-driven teen, dealing with issues of good and evil on a grand scale in Barbara Thorson.

Kelly first wrote the story of Barbara, a young girl struggling with life’s troubles as she sees fantastic forces of good and evil that others can’t see, based on how his young, precocious daughter might handle inconceivable tragedy. Looking back, Kelly chuckles at the way his younger self handled certain passages or moments in the story, but the collaboration with director Anders Walter has allowed him to see the story in a new way.

“It was partly based on my own life experiences, wrangling issues for the first time as an adult,” Kelly shared, “but it’s also about seeing those ideas embodied in the giant. I’d been trying to introduce my daughter to all the geeky stuff I love, and I had the idea of conveying this world of Dungeons and Dragons, and fantasy, through the eyes of someone her age.”

But Barbara is a different personality altogether. She’s different from Kelly’s chattier Deadpool, allowing him to do something different than what people might expect. “He speaks a lot,” Kelly laughed. “One of the challenges was to use as few words as possible with graphic novel because I love dialogue and sassy characters. But we’re trying to keep that to a minimum with Barbara. Whether I’m working on a legacy character like Superman or Ben 10, who is this person and what makes them tick and feel real? When I wrote Superman, he wasn’t married but I was newly married in real life, so it helped me handle his character.”

Kelly said the focus was on helping the audience, reading or viewing, buy into Barbara’s world and the reality of her situation. He admitted that his wife, who’d been Ms. Molle before she married him, grounded the guidance counselor of the same name who reaches out to Barbara’s troubled middle school self. While Barbara battles mystical evil that others can’t see, she’s also wrestling with real-life issues, like the bully at school, a bigger girl named Taylor.

“Rory [Jackson] who plays Taylor is one of the sweetest kids I’ve ever met!” the author exclaimed. “Every time she’d go into character, it was like, wow, she’s really turning it on! But that shows the audience that Barbara is fearless except for the giant. She feels like she can deal with anything. Her take on bullies and has the willingness to stand up to Taylor.”

“Barbara might not be the best example; she might not do things in the most eloquent way or go talk to a teacher. She’s not the best role model but I hope she reflects the idea that you can go through the fear and get through to the other side. She can remind people that they can stand up for themselves in the moment. It’s hard to put in the nutshell of a film because bullying is such a complex thing.”

On March 23, in theaters and On Demand/Digital HD, audiences will get to examine Barbara in a new way, and consider how their lives might translate into this fantastic world. Would they make the same decisions? Will they agree with Kelly’s perspective? He hopes they’ll leave the theater asking questions, and consider what that means for how they handle the world around them.

A Wrinkle in Time: Madeleine L’Engle’s Wrinkled Theology

by 2 Comments

One of my biggest regrets is I did not read more “classic novels” when I was growing up. I was well into my adulthood before I read such books as Of Mice and Men and Watership Down. My first reading of A Wrinkle in Time was in 2009 when I was spearheading Hollywood Jesus’ LOST Library. The television show, LOST (remember the plane that crashed on an island and the enigmatic happenings there?), often alluded to novels and other literature, and there was an interest in those books on the internet because of this.

Madeleine L’Engle’s “theology” – especially her purported “universalism” – is just as controversial today as it was in 1962 when the book was first published. As I wrote in my review, “Love Covers All Wrinkles,”

A Wrinkle in Time was so controversial when it was completed in 1960 that it was rejected by over twenty publishers before it was published in 1962. Her belief in Christian Universalism resulted in her works being banned from certain Christian bookstores and schools. However, A Wrinkle in Time became Madeleine L’Engle’s most recognized and awarded work, and is the first of a series in her Time Quintet. I do not agree with her Universalism, but found the book profitable nonetheless.

It is easy to be critical. Disney’s new adaptation of the book is currently being lambasted by the press, garnering a “rotten” rating by critics on RottenTomatoes.com, and only a 37% audience rating. I have not seen the movie yet, so I cannot comment on how good it is. But I have a hint, from what I have read on the internet, I would be more approving than a former colleague who concluded,  “…the message it hammers you with is not only disheartening, but could truly prove to be quite confusing to younger viewers.”

It must be remembered that the movie, as well as the book, are meant for “younger” audiences. So, I am not too disappointed that on a second reading nine years later I find Wrinkle a bit shallow.  I was also surprised what a quick read it is. But these can be positive things which recommend the book for an audience of a certain age. The theme of love conquering the darkness may not be presented with much nuance or sophistication, but sometimes the obvious is what children (and often adults) need.

What I do find profound is L’Engle’s presentation of what Evil is. She could have shown a society torn by war. That, indeed, can result from Evil. She could have portrayed a world perverted by greed and vice. But she chose to show a world which is profoundly compliant – everyone doing exactly what they are “supposed to do” – to an extreme. It is the perfect Camazotz—a word I take to be a play on King Arthur’s Camelot. A world where all strife and differences are being eliminated. How could that be so bad?

Meg, the young protagonist, has an epiphany after she, in order to resist IT, recites the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, including the words, “all men are created equal.”

As she cried out the words she felt a mind moving in on her own, felt IT seizing, squeezing her brain. Then she realized that Charles Wallace was speaking, or being spoken through by IT. “But that’s exactly what we have on Camazotz. Complete equality. Everybody exactly alike.” For a moment her brain reeled with confusion. Then came a moment of blazing truth. “No!” she cried triumphantly. “Like and equal are not the same thing at all!” [L’Engle, Madeleine. A Wrinkle in Time (A Wrinkle in Time Quintet Book 1) (pp. 153-154). Farrar, Straus and Giroux (BYR). Kindle Edition.]

God created us equal, but He didn’t create us all alike. He relishes diversity. Just look at his creation around you! The Apostle Paul put it this way:

Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands and moves towards the goal of true maturity. [Romans 12: 2 J.B. Phillips New Testament]

The method of governments, and often religion, is to put outward pressure on us to get us to conform. To all be the same – to all be alike. God wants to change our hearts from the inside, recognizing the diverse way He has made us, conquering the darkness – not by intimidation and fear, but through love. Let that wrinkle your theology a bit. (Please. Let it.)

The main complaint by conservative Christians through the years, however, has been the assertion L’Engle’s work promotes relativism. Because Jesus and Buddha are mentioned in the same passage as those who fought “the darkness,” many critics have gotten bent out of shape. It reminds me somewhat of the controversy over Ben Barnes’ statements during an interview in 2010. Barnes (who portrayed Prince Caspian in the second and third Narnia movies) was misrepresented by Britain’s MailOnline as saying Aslan “is also based on other religious leaders [besides Jesus Christ] such as Mohammed and Buddha.” What he actually said in that interview has been recorded elsewhere, including a report I did for HJ’s Narnia News:

Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries. That’s who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids – that’s what he means for me. [Emphasis added. …]

Barnes knew where C.S. Lewis got the idea for Aslan. He was merely stating his own personal reflections. We Christians, especially those of us who write on such websites as Screenfish.net, often appropriate Christian ideas from films which the writers and producers did not intend. I obviously don’t have a problem with that, and I’m just as willing to let those of other faiths do the same with materials that have a Christian bent.

After discussing the “Emeth passage” from the last book of the Narnia series, I concluded Lewis was not a universalist, but that he would not deprecate an honest seeker who disagreed with him. “I don’t think that Lewis would be shattered because Neeson sees Mohammed and Buddha in Aslan. If Neeson finds other spiritual leaders besides Christ in Aslan, then perhaps it is because he sees something of Christ in them and someday will find what he is truly seeking.” (See my December 2010 article here.)

Barnes may well believe in relativism, but our hope should ever be the truth proclaimed, by however flawed the messenger, would be sifted by the Holy Spirit, eventually leading him to Him who is the Truth. But what about L’Engle? What did she mean by including Buddha and others in a list beginning with Jesus? Let’s try to understand by looking at the passage where this is found.

“And we’re not alone, you know, children,” came Mrs Whatsit, the comforter. “All through the universe it’s being fought, all through the cosmos, and my, but it’s a grand and exciting battle. I know it’s hard for you to understand about size, how there’s very little difference in the size of the tiniest microbe and the greatest galaxy. You think about that, and maybe it won’t seem strange to you that some of our very best fighters have come right from your own planet, and it’s a little planet, dears, out on the edge of a little galaxy. You can be proud that it’s done so well.” “Who have our fighters been?” Calvin asked. “Oh, you must know them, dear,” Mrs Whatsit said. Mrs Who’s spectacles shone out at them triumphantly, “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” “Jesus!” Charles Wallace said. “Why of course, Jesus!” “Of course!” Mrs Whatsit said. “Go on, Charles, love. There were others. All your great artists. They’ve been lights for us to see by.”
“Leonardo da Vinci?” Calvin suggested tentatively. “And Michelangelo?” “And Shakespeare,” Charles Wallace called out, “and Bach! And Pasteur and Madame Curie and Einstein!” Now Calvin’s voice rang with confidence. “And Schweitzer and Gandhi and Buddha and Beethoven and Rembrandt and St. Francis!” “Now you, Meg,” Mrs Whatsit ordered. “Oh, Euclid, I suppose. …And Copernicus.” [L’Engle, Madeleine. A Wrinkle in Time (A Wrinkle in Time Quintet Book 1) (pp. 84-85). Farrar, Straus and Giroux (BYR). Kindle Edition.]

It is often said, “All truth is God’s truth.” This is not a relativistic statement that anything claiming to be the truth is just as valid as any other claim. It is the belief that whenever anything is found to be true, it is true because God has made it to be true. This has ever been affirmed throughout Christianity as early as Augustine, who said, “…let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master…” [On Christian Doctrine, II.18] It is evident from the passage above this is one point the author was trying to make. Light is not only shed by religious leaders, but through science. God has used the enlightenment of science to bring us out of many dark places. Until very recently in modern history, scientific advancement was generally, with few exceptions, promoted by the Church.

With the exception of Gandhi and Buddha, the entire list of people mentioned as fighting the darkness are either scientists,* Christian ministers, or artists. Certainly the arts have moved many with a vision of beauty and the glory of God. And Gandhi and Buddha’s ideas certainly have brought a measure of enlightenment to their followers. No one mentioned – with the exception of Jesus – was perfect. But neither were Meg and Calvin and Charles. Yet they were enlisted in the fight.

And so are we.

Perhaps it is high time we learned to fight the darkness with love instead of fighting those we do not think are worthy of joining the fight.

Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”
Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” [Luke 9:49-55 NKJV]

____________________
*If A Wrinkle in Time were being written today, I am sure the list would include Stephen Hawking, who died yesterday. Whatever else you may think of him, he indeed added light to our understanding of the universe. You may be interested in a piece I wrote in 2009 about his A Brief History of Time. You can read it here.

The Impossible: Interview with Joyce Smith

by 1 Comment

Photo credit: Lori Straine via Hatchette Press

Skiing, sledding, snowball fights, mugs of hot cocoa—winter means different things to people.  In the case of Joyce Smith, it means something more.

Life.

In her book The Impossible (releases today via Hatchette Press), she tells the story of her son John, a child she adopted from Guatemala.  When he was 14 years old, an event occurred that is nothing short of miraculous.  I recently had the opportunity to talk with her about John and why he is receiving such large amounts of attention—all from a local news story.

Smith’s life wasn’t a perfect one.  As she put it, she had her own “littered trail of disasters.” Her first child was given up for adoption and she nearly committed suicide at one point.  But she adopted John from Guatemala and watched him grow up into a typical teenager who was pretty good at basketball. After one game in January 2015 where he scored the winning basket, he was asked by a friend to spend the night.  It just so happened that a cold spell caused the local lake to freeze over, so after throwing rocks to test the ice, they walked around on it.  The next day, they tried it again—but the ice gave way and both fell into the 40 degree water.  Nineteen minutes later, John was pulled from the lake completely lifeless (his friend made it out okay). Smith remembers telling God in a loud, demanding conversation, “You can’t take my son from me. We asked for him seventeen years ago.”

John was rushed to the hospital as doctors tried to revive him and increase his 88 degree body temperature.  Nothing was working.  He was, by all accounts, dead.  The doctors wanted to let Smith see John before they called the time of death, so she entered the room and continued praying. An hour later, one of the nurses picked up a faint pulse.  This was amazing in its own right, but there were many issues John was dealing with (multiple organ failure, no brain function).  Smith made it clear to the multitude of doctors and nurses that there would be no negative talk around him—even though he wasn’t expected to live through the evening.  “Life and death is in the tongue,” she told me.

Nineteen days later, John walked out of the hospital on his own as if nothing ever happened.  Three weeks after that (40 days in total), he was released from all of his doctors and given a completely clean bill of health.

At its essence, The Impossible is a story of miracles.  It is also a story of hope, prayer, and how a community rallied around one of their own.  A local news reporter covered the story, and it went viral quickly.  The whole series of events has been likened by Smith as a “tapestry of miracles,” from the specific doctors helping John to the local firefighters testing out cold weather retrieval gear four days before the accident in the exact same location John fell through the ice.

Of course, not every occurrence of drowning ends in a miraculous story like John’s. Smith said that God answers our prayers, but not always how we want.  In this case, he wanted to let people know that he has the final word in all situations.  It requires trust and faith akin to Abraham, who did whatever God asked without question—even to the point of nearly sacrificing Isaac (see Genesis 22:1-19).  He wasn’t perfect, but God called him a friend.

The Impossible comes out in book form today, but Smith mentioned having a conversation with a gentleman for 45 minutes while waiting to be interviewed on television. The gentleman turned out to be Devon Franklin, who is about to begin filming the movie version of the book through 20th Century Fox.  I’m sure we’ll take a look at that once we get closer to the film’s release date.

(Thanks to Roya Eftekari from Rogers & Cowan for setting up the interview)

IT: What a Bunch of Losers

by 1 Comment

It’s tough enough to adapt an author’s seminal work for the big screen; perhaps even harder for a filmmaker to follow with his own version of an already beloved adaptation of that same literary masterpiece.

Apparently director Andres Muschietti wasn’t scared. But he darned sure knows how to be scary.

Muschetti’s brand new take on Stephen King’s IT fills the clown-sized shoes of its 1990 TV miniseries with ease, threatening to burst the very big top as the new standard by which all other King-adaptations will be judged by. IT is smart, funny, captivating and oh so very, very scary. It’s not just a fantastic horror movie (superior to ninety percent of the genre’s offerings over the past decade), but a great film. And much like its original source material, IT deserves to be revered as a modern-day classic.

The ultimate deterrent to make sure kids don't play in storm drains: Pennywise the Dancing Clown.

Weighing in at a hefty two hours and fifteen minutes, IT never lulls. The opening titles have barely rolled when the creep factor creeps in; the first gasp-inducing moment follows mere moments later…and the thrills and chills just keep coming, like a terrifying high-wire act that you watch with one hand over your eyes.

But don’t dare miss a bit of IT. Even with the considerable screen time given the monstrous villain, Pennywise the Dancing Clown (Bill Skarsgard, the brilliant heir to Tim Curry’s 1990 version), the real scares—and the real showmanship—is found in the brilliant backstories of the ragamuffin protagonists and the secrets locked behind the closed doors of King’s oft-used odd-town, Derry, Maine.

This time, we learn of yet another of Derry’s sinister subplots: children disappear. Like, all the time. In fact, they disappear at six times the national average for missing kids. And though the residents mourn these horrifying losses, nobody seems to want to find out why.

Not until young Georgie Denbrough (Jackson Robert Scott) disappears down a storm drain and his older brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) decides to get to the bottom of the mystery. Bill enlists the aid of his small circle of friends—a rambling troupe of self-deprecating teens who gladly accept their peer-given moniker of “The Losers Club.” It’s a snub that’s more true than any of the group’s detractors realize. That’s because each one of the Losers has lost some type of familial tie—most often, the parent/child relationship.

The Losers have a tough choice to make--keep running or confront their worst fears.

Yes, the poor Losers have endured—continue to endure—more horror than the child-nabbing-Pennywise can inflict. Sure, he’s a centuries-old demon who can manifest as their deepest fears, but the Losers have been living in their nightmares, whether waking or dreaming, for the entirety of their short lives. Disappointment, paranoia, tragic death, emotional and sexual abuse—all have rent the Losers’ lives asunder. Yet still they persevere, staring down the personification of the evil that seems to big, too close to home, to overcome. Still they fight, realizing that together, they are stronger than the sum of their individual tragedies.

Georgie always hated going in the basement. Bill finally finds out why. Pennywise lies in wait like a crawlspace rat, just waiting to feed on the fears of his victims.

It’s a not-so-subtle reminder of personal pitfalls, and the strength that comes with the admission that we don’t have it all together, despite our desperate desire to have others believe that we do. Too often we sit inside the cubicle—or at the end of the pew—afraid to drop our guard. We worry about what everyone else would say if our inner demons were ever exposed. Instead of seeking help, we choose to do battle on our own and end up busted up, beaten down and beholden to the dark desires of the villains who perpetually remind us of the worst of ourselves. It is only when we share our struggles with one another—and with Christ—that we stand a chance to bury whatever IT is that has tortured us for so long.

The Losers quickly learn how much harder it is to beat the killer clown on his own turf.

It’s not easy to expose our demons. In fact, it’s pretty darned scary. But there’s a whole world of frightened people out there, a veritable three-ring circus of pain, shame and regret. Luckily, there’s a Ringmaster who can juggle all the madness and turn the worst episodes of our lives into the Greatest Show on Earth. His name is Jesus and he’s not scared.  He’s waiting to make a fool out of your Pennywise.

Be astonished. Be astounded. Be amazed.

Be set free.

Bring out the clowns.

Special features include “Pennywise Lives,” a look at how Bill Skarsgard prepared to play the role of Pennywise; “The Losers Club,” how the teenagers bonded together on the set and off; “Author of Fear,” how Stephen King’s original premise – and its villain – came into existence; and deleted scenes.