ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Current Events

Good Trouble and Bad Trouble

by Leave a Comment

Sometimes what is going on around us colors what we see when we watch a film. For example, today (I’m writing on January 6, 2021) I chose to watch the wonderful documentary John Lewis: Good Trouble. Part way through, my wife came out and told me to turn on the news, where a seditious mob was occupying the US Capitol. When I resumed the film, the seeming parallels were striking, but in reality, these stories diverge radically.

John Lewis, Baptist minister, civil rights leader, long time Congressman, spent his life in support of liberty. He was beaten on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma. He was a Freedom Rider, beaten by the Klan in North Carolina. He took part in lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville. He was arrested over 40 times. His main focus in the civil rights movement was voting rights—the ability of all people to be able to vote freely. He understood the power of protest. He was also a strong believer in non-violence. He worked to make the world a better place for all people. His mantra when speaking to groups was that they should get in trouble, “good trouble, necessary trouble”, to do what is right.

I would submit that what I saw on the news today was really quite different from the kind of “good trouble” that John Lewis advocated. The protesters today claim they are there because the election was rigged, and they have been goaded on by the lies of President Trump. They are not being non-violent. They are doing damage. They are injuring others. Whereas John Lewis sought to bring light into the world, this group only brings darkness. Even after they have been denounced by members of both political parties, they continue their mayhem.

When the film I watched showed the events in Selma or other protests Lewis was involved in, the only violence was that which police or mobs used against the marchers. The Selma March was just that—people walking together along the side of the road. In sit-ins, the protesters did not do damage. They didn’t break the store windows or lunch counter equipment. They just asked to be served. (Lewis asked for a hamburger and a Coke.) Lewis and the others in the movement did not attack the institutions of government; they just asked to be able to transform government through the ballot.

Lewis understood what he was doing was a battle for the soul of America. The images on the news today make it very clear that that battle—which is as spiritual as it is political, continues. John Lewis was an optimist. (I think one had to have optimism to fight for Civil Rights.) His final message in the film, spoken directly to the camera, was “We will create the beloved community. We will redeem the soul of America. There may be some setbacks, some delays, but as a nation and a people we will get there. And I still believe we shall overcome.”

Photos courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

Baseball in the Time of COVID – A Fan Considers the Season

by Leave a Comment

So, a bizarre sixty game baseball season is about to start. It will be played with no one in the stands. There will be no sunflower seeds because there will be no spitting. No one will high five a teammate who just hit a grand slam. Managers will have to yell at umpires from six feet away (while wearing a mask). NL teams will have a DH. In extra innings teams start with a runner on second base.

But there will be baseball!

Before I go on, I should point out that I am an ardent baseball fan. Last year, I splurged on a twenty game package for Dodgers games. That allowed me into the stadium an hour earlier than plebian ticket holders so I could watch the Dodgers take batting practice. I did that a few times. I have played fantasy baseball for decades. When I go to a game, I keep score, because if I’m ever present for a super-rarity (e.g., a perfect game, hitting for the cycle, or unassisted triple play), I want a record of it. I love the rhythm of the game (what many people find boring). It is the perfect summer sport because you can relax as you watch it. Sure, it has its times of tension, but they are spaced throughout the game. I say all that to let you know that this all means something to me. (I won’t go into theologizing about baseball—that’s just too easy.)

My view for 20 games last year.

I have to say I have mixed feelings about this season. I can understand the owners and players wanting to get some sort of season in. For many that is a financial reason, but it also speaks to their competitive mindset. But I’m speaking as a fan. I could make the argument that baseball should close shop for the year. Sixty games seems like nothing when you think of the normal 162 game season. But at the same time, as a fan, I’m anxious to watch some games on TV (maybe even on my phone if I have to). Let’s face it, it’s been a hard year. We need something to take our minds off all the bad stuff.

At the beginning of World War II, there was talk of shutting down baseball. Some of the best player had already enlisted to fight. There were more important things for able-bodied men to be doing than shagging flies or turning double plays. But, in his ‘Green Light Letter’ to Kenesaw Mountain Landis (the Federal judge who served as Commissioner of Baseball), the President said:

“I honestly feel that it would be best for the country to keep baseball going. There will be fewer people unemployed and everybody will work longer hours and hard than ever before. And that means they ought to have a chance for recreation and for taking their minds off their work even more than before.”

FDR’s letter to Judge Landis

Of course, the employment part of this is reversed in our pandemic setting. Instead, we have been through times when parks and restaurants have been closed; movie theaters are still closed; we have hair that makes us look like hippies; we get excited about a trip to the hardware store. We also need “a chance for recreation and for taking our minds off” our hardships. So, yes, the baseball season, such as it is, is a welcome diversion from the boredom and depression that the last few months have made seem normal.

Of course, there are also some problems. A sixty game season doesn’t really test the mettle of the teams. A hot streak could be all it takes to push into the playoffs. In a normal season, there are some players who have slow starts.

This year, that could mean a really bad season.

On the other hand, there are also players who fade as the season wears on. For them this could be their only shot at MVP. Does that threaten the legitimacy of the season and the eventual World Series champion?

Let’s look again at World War II. Some of the best players (Joe DiMaggio, Bob Feller, Ted Williams, Hank Greenberg) enlisted. As more and more men went to the war, the minor leagues dried up, making the pool of players even smaller. By 1945, Pete Gray roamed the outfield for the St. Louis Browns, finishing the season with a .218 batting average. He lost his right arm in an accident as a child. Speaking of the Browns (the epitome of haplessness), they won their only American League pennant in 1944. (Even after they became the Baltimore Orioles it would be more than 20 years before that happened again.) And World War II was also the reason for the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (cf. the movie A League of Their Own). Yes, World War II brought some strange things to baseball, but that is one of the things I love about baseball—it creates wonderful lore. The COVID season will probably add to baseball’s delightful mythos.

But there is also a dark side to this baseball season. The players, coaches, umpires, and various stadium personnel are all placing themselves (and their families) at a certain level of risk. Some players have opted out of the season because of that risk. Others may contract the virus in the course of the season. They (or their families) could get sick. Even if they are asymptomatic, they will have to stay away from the team until they are clear (which requires two negative tests twenty-four hours apart). To try to mitigate these risks players will self-screen before they leave home and be screened again at the ballpark. They will be tested every other day. For the players this is good precautionary action.

But this level of testing does raise one of the big problems in how I view the season. The owners are paying for this testing and have even hired their own lab so that the results are done quickly. But where I live testing is not encouraged unless you have symptoms or have close contact with someone who is positive. And then, you may have to wait a week or more for the results. It smacks of privilege for the rich (and most of the ballplayers easily qualify as that). While many people who need testing have to wait in long lines and then wait several days for results, baseball players get to go to the front of the line. I’m not against the players getting tested. But it reflects some of the flaws in our society that have been exposed by the pandemic.

(I should temper this accusation of privilege with a recognition that many of these very well-paid athletes have been very generous in giving to help people who have been affected by the pandemic—both in and out of baseball. It’s worth noting that for all the debating between owners and players about pay while the season was on hold, that many of these people assume an obligation to care for others out of the wealth the game has generated for them.)

Yet, even though there are things about this season that should make us think twice about affirming the idea of the COVID season, as a fan I’m ready for the shout of “Play ball!” Let’s appreciate the stillness that baseball brings. Let’s enjoy the skills on display. Let’s be thankful that the players are willing to go through the testing and risk for us to enjoy their game. But let’s also push for the changes that are so needed in the real world.

In Her Own Voice: 1on1 with Miranda Bailey (CherryPicks)

by Leave a Comment

Breaking into the ‘boys club’ is never easy.

Even as things begin to improve due to recent movements surrounding women in the Hollywood, the power still remains predominantly in the hands of the men in the industry. Interestingly, while many of these conversations have surrounded gender equity in filmmaking and production, what about the world of film criticism? 

Enter The Cherry Picks.

Developed by Miranda Bailey, TheCherryPicks.com seeks to create space for female-identifying and non-binary critics to find their voice. By highlighting reviews and creating original stories, Cherry Picks has started to bring a little more balance into the primarily male-dominated world of film criticism. Asked how the idea came about, Bailey recalls that the development of the site stemmed from the realization that, even though it seemed obvious, no one else was providing a platform for alternative critical expressions.

“The question is ‘why didn’t anybody else think of this?’,” she laughs. “It came about because I was looking for something like this. I had produced a movie [called] I Do Until I Don’t, which was Lake Bell’s second feature film. It was about women and geared towards women. It was friendly towards love. It didn’t make any grandiose political statements or anything like that and a lot of the male reviewers when they were reviewing it were saying things about how disappointed they were with Lake. It was like she was their daughter or something and it was just like really weird. Some of the female reviewers talked about it, and they didn’t necessarily score it any better, but they talked about it differently. They actually talked about the film part. And a lot of my friends who aren’t in the industry who are women really liked it… So, I was like, ‘Oh, well let me find out what all women think and what’s the women’s score of that for critics’.”

“And then I couldn’t find it. I found some organizations that had female critics that belong to it, but you’d have to like go and read each one. But those weren’t necessarily Rotten Tomatoes certified critics and you couldn’t figure out a score… When I was looking a little deeper, I realized that, at that time which was about three years ago, like 78% of the critics were men. I think they’ve gotten it to like 60 something now… How are we ever going to do what we say we want to do in Hollywood, which is have more women behind the camera and have more female stories, if consumers are hearing what is worth their money from mostly men? So [Cherry Picks] was kind of a way to start something that would help female critics get more noticed, get more jobs, get more hired. But it was also a way for me to affect the consumer market to prove that there actually is an audience for film by and about women. We collect the scores of all of the critics that on every movie, [including those that are] non-binary or identify as female. We do Ford v Ferrari, also. We collate from that as well. So, it’s not only about women movies, but it’s just about what women think these movies that are out there. So, you know, it’s a ‘for everyone, by women’ kind of thing.”

Even though she believes that its essential for stronger diversity in the circles of film criticism, Bailey also explains that the ‘female voice’ is never the same across the board. With the development of Cherry Picks, Bailey’s vision is simply to provide an alternative opinion in a male-dominated industry.

“I think everyone’s an individual,” she explains, “so I don’t think [that] all men think one way. All women, all Republicans, all Democrats, all blacks or whites or whatever. I don’t think that way, but think about it like magazines, right? Like I don’t really read GQ magazine. I’m not the demo for that. I know most guys don’t read Marie Claire, right? So, it’s really just about interests and whatnot. I could read a GQ magazine, if I wanted to. A guy could read Marie Claire, if they wanted to do. I just wanted to present something that you could read, if you wanted to.”

From Instagram Live interviews to written reviews, Bailey is clearly excited about the variety of ways that Cherry Picks is bringing their voice to the public. Viewing themselves as a ‘film-friendly’ site, Bailey recognizes that even bad movies deserve a place in our hearts.

“Cherry Picks has a newsletter that comes out every Friday that kind of tells you what to watch right now,” she beams. “Obviously, we’re focused on movies that are playing at your home, but they’re new movies and it’s great. You can go to the movie pages, [and] see the scores [from] female critics, and how they’ve been curated. We have a ‘bowl of cherries’, which is like ‘run, don’t walk’. Two cherries, [means] that it’s worth the ticket. One cherry [means] catch it from your couch, but maybe not worth going to see. (Fortunately, all of us are on our couches now.) And then there’s the ‘pits’, which is pretty self-explanatory. For myself, as a filmmaker or a woman, I don’t know which one is talking here. Maybe it’s the combo, but I love ‘pitty’ movies. That’s kind of our motto. Everyone loves a ‘pitty’ movie now and then. So, it’s a very film-friendly site as opposed to something that [says] ‘Don’t see this. It’s garbage.’ I love some garbage. I mean, The Hot Chick is one of my favorite movies of all time… Our Instagram is doing Instagram Lives with a lot of actresses right now, and female filmmakers every day, every Tuesday and Thursday at one o’clock. Instagram Live. It’s really fun and it’s fun to make that new content, I have to say.”

A veteran of the industry herself, Bailey continues to strive for gender equality in the workplace. While people continue to debate whether or not things have improved for women behind the scenes, she insists that there is still much work to be done.

“I’ve been hearing [stories about progress being made] for my entire 20-year career,” Bailey points out. “[I’ve heard] ‘There’s no audience for it’ and then there’s, ‘We need more of it’. [From] not necessarily any movement to Times Up and MeToo. I had started working on Cherry Picks before that had happened. So, it was just really coincidentally good timing that we were able to get this site up and launched and writing right at the time when people were talking about [the fact that] women should be listened to. So, I got very lucky with that. Movements [like] Time’s Up, MeToo, or other movements like Black Lives Matter are really important movements that make people pay attention to [those issues]. We can’t just say that we want equality. We have to go out of our way to make equality happen. I think that, since those movements have started and they really gained a lot of traction, that things have been changing for the better for women for sure. I think there’s obviously still problems, but you know, I do definitely notice a change in the work place…” 

With this in mind, Bailey feels that one manner in which the industry could demonstrate gender equity would be for the Oscars to separate the Best Director award into male and female categories, similar to what they do with the acting nods.

“Do we still have the problem that not a single female director was nominated for an Oscar this year when we had the best year ever of movies by women? Absolutely,” she continues. ”It was a problem. That has to do with money. Unless there’s a category specifically for women in the Oscars or Golden Globes for directing and there’s a reason why a distributor will put money behind a campaign specifically for a woman who is not an actress… It’s only going to happen if they can make money off of the ‘Oscar winner’. Right now, they don’t go out of their way to select movies that are directed by women. They go out of their way to select the movies that they think have a chance. Also, people vote for their friends. This is in SAG Awards, PGA and whatever. It’s always the idea [there’s] a ‘boys club’ and it’s true. But more and more women are breaking into that boy’s club. The more we get into the boy’s club, the more it will [improve]. Awards campaigns are very expensive and the only reason that you do it is to make more money. So, until there’s a financial interest for distributors to literally invest in a campaign for female directors, I don’t see it taking great strides.” 

Although she recognizes that dividing the Best Director category has its complexities, she also believes that doing so would create more opportunities for notoriety and financial gain for everyone involved.

“Do I want to be called a female producer or a female director? No, I want to be thought of as a director and a producer,” Bailey contends. “It doesn’t matter what my sex is. However, the only way I can see us really jumping in and getting money behind us for being a director is if there’s a category for it, personally. Now, I know that a lot of people that disagree with that because they don’t want to be singled out, you know? There’re also sexual identity stuff and nonbinary people, people who don’t identify as either sex so, I do understand the complexities. It’s certainly not something I’m going to campaign for. It’s too controversial but I have a distribution business myself. I’m a partner at the Film Arcade so I know how it works. I have a production company and so I know how it works. And, at the end of the day, whether it’s doing a small campaign for a Spirit Award or doing a big campaign for the Oscars, it’s all about money and what you can put on your website or your video case, your film poster, which is ‘Winner Of…’. Not until this year did I come to the thought [that] there should be a female director category because Mary Heller, Lulu Wang… and all these other movies that were smaller movies that were brilliant should have been nominated for directing and they were not. But yet they would have been if we had a female director category. So, that’s where it gets a little tricky. I don’t think it will happen, but that’s just what I think.”
“The only reason that women and men [acting categories] are [separated is] because, back when they started it, getting Marilyn Monroe and getting these fancy, beautiful, iconic actresses that were movie stars to show up was how they got people to watch the show. No one [cared] about the costume designers or whatever before. But now, it’s become an art form that’s much more about filmmaking than movie stars.” 
However, what’s far more important than awards campaigns is the issue of equal pay within the industry. Even though she sees that progress has been made as a result of recent social movements, Bailey also recognizes that there continues to be tremendous imbalance behind the scenes.

“People are talking about it but, to be honest, the deal I was just making with two other men, I, once again, was asked to not take a fee,” she remembers. “So, it’s not changing for me as a producer. I did have to demand that I get paid what everyone gets paid. My friend also is a producer on a big movie right now that got shut down. She also had an issue where they were paying her $25,000 less than the two men who are doing less work. I mean, it is a big problem still and it is still happening. It is really annoying and upsetting when you go through it. And I’m done. My whole life has taken less than men on every single movie I’ve ever made or been asked to and I’ve done it. Me and my colleague Amanda have to split a fee, one fee for the two of us, where the other guys will get their own. It’s just shocking and I’ve had to fight just for that. So, now I have a resume that’s big enough that I have enough confidence in myself to be able to say that I’m not going to do this movie or this TV show, you know? I just had to take a hard line. I started the hard line about four years ago with Swiss Army Man. I did get paid less on that movie than the other producer… And my office did all the work. Amanda got paid less as well. I had to fight for us to get paid at all on that. That was obviously before MeToo or Time’s Up. But now, I’m not accepting anything less than equal. If I’m doing the equal work, I’m just not. If I’m not doing equal work, I get it. I don’t want to pay a man the same as me if I’m doing more work. That’s pretty much always happening. I love men… There are men [that] I admire. Several men have mentored me more than women have in this business. My agents and managers, they were the first to believe in me and I really appreciate them.”

Looking forward, while she may not have any specific path in mind, Bailey very much hopes to see awareness of the issues of disparity continue to build so that more people can receive opportunities to succeed.

“I’m not one for mandates, myself,” begins Bailey. “It’d be great to have more PSAs about it frankly and bring more awareness into it because I don’t think people understand. I know my son who’s 12 does not understand. He thinks that the ‘pink tax’ is a hoax. He thinks that there’s no such thing as ‘fair pay’ just because that’s not a real thing. It is! I didn’t experience this, but my mother did. Women weren’t allowed to get their own credit card or buy their own house without a man co-signing for them. Women weren’t allowed to get jobs. One of the things with Rotten Tomatoes that was probably why it was hard for them to have a more diverse selection of critics, [is] because their standards at the time… were things like you had to work at the New York Times for the last ten years. Those jobs 10 years ago were not given to women or people of color. So, when your restrictions are set with the resume you need to have, it’s a lot harder for women or people of color because we weren’t able to get those jobs. (I’m certainly not comparing what women have gone through with people of color. I think that people of color have had a much harder time than white women and women of color have had really hard times getting jobs as well.) I think we just have to be more open to taking people who aren’t as experienced, believing in people who need a chance, who haven’t had the ability to make twenty movies before now. Maybe they’ve done one. Maybe they’d done a short. I think that people with money, which isn’t necessarily me or indie films, but studios, television series and whatnot, need to be able to be willing to bring on female directors. “

When she considers which current female voices in the industry she’s most excited about, Bailey believes that there are several high-quality filmmakers that are worth keeping an eye on.

“I think Lulu Wang and Alma Har’el’s work are very exciting to me right now in terms of female directors and ones to watch,” she says enthusiastically. “Where will they be in five years? I hope that they’ll be huge, personally. You know how Wes Anderson has or the Coen Brothers or Baumbach have a [specific] look? I think there’s this girl named Suzi Yoonessi that’s [directed] a couple of films and she’s had very little money to work with… And I’m not saying not the greatest films in the world, but she definitely has a really interesting style, I think. I’m curious to see if that style gets embraced. It’s definitely kind of girly pop-y style, which I haven’t seen before. So, those are a couple of filmmakers that I think are really interesting right now”.

To visit Cherry Picks, click here.

For complete audio of our conversation with Miranda Bailey, click here.

The Hot Zone: A Healthy Fear

by Leave a Comment

(National Geographic/Amanda Matlovich)

Now that Game of Thrones has moved on from the world of water cooler discussion, what are you planning to watch this week?  One acceptable option could be a new series from National Geographic called The Hot Zone.  Starring Juliana Margulies (ER), this three-part miniseries (Monday-Wednesday this week) brings to mind an episode of NCIS with significantly more gore and blood—and that’s just within the first ten minutes of the opening episode.  Based on the book of the same name by Richard Preston and with Ridley Scott (Aliens) helping out, The Hot Zone is a graphic reminder to be thankful for scientists that help to protect us from potentially fatal diseases–and that fear can be a good thing.

The opening of the first episode features a plane leaving Kenya in 1980 with a gentleman who’s contracted something very nasty.  The doctor checking him out learns this the hard way—he gets a faceful of the guy’s bodily fluids (and later dies, it is implied). When a mysterious package arrives at USAMRIID headquarters (the Army’s institute for infectious diseases) nine years later, Lt. Col. Nancy Jaax (Margulies) takes a look and immediately sends it to the bowels of the lab, where some of the worst diseases in the world reside and access requires a hazmat suit. Jaax ironically states, “I work at one of the safest places in the world” moments before a cut opens in her suit, exposing her to the Ebola virus. She is okay, but later discovers a nearby research facility had a number of monkeys die as a result of Ebola.  Since there have been no reported cases in the US, there’s massive concern of an epidemic outbreak due to multiple factors, none bigger than the fact that the research facility is 20 miles from Washington DC. It’s a race against time—one that cannot be solved in a single episode.

There’s a significant amount of tension to be found in The Hot Zone, most of it occurring in the form of sickness, isolation, and claustrophobia—especially those blue hazmat suits. There’s a lab component with Dr. Peter Jahrling (Topher Grace) and Ben Gellis (Paul James) offering a little bit of levity, but it is short-lived.  The wild card in the situation is Wade Carter (Liam Cunningham), Jaax’s mentor, who seems to know more than one might think about infectious diseases.

(National Geographic/Amanda Matlovich)

One thing that is evident from the first episode of The Hot Zone is fear.  I don’t think anyone who stands face to face with organisms that could kill the whole of humanity would feel otherwise. There is a sense of uncertainty when Jaax and crew are attempting to identify the virus, leading to increasing levels of trepidation.  Despite what some people say, it is a good thing to have a little fear in one’s life. In fact, the Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (see Proverbs 9:10). Having no fear before the Creator of all things (including deadly viruses) says something about a person—none of it good.

It seems like The Hot Zone is going to be an interesting ride, so be prepared when you sit down to watch this week.  You may not want to touch your face with your hands for a while.

The Biggest Little Farm: Rebuilding Eden

by Leave a Comment

John and Molly Chester, owners of Apricot Lane Farms (photo J Alan Sharrer)

When a person finds purpose in what they do, every day is an opportunity just waiting to be explored. In the case of John and Molly Chester, their purpose lies on 214 acres of land just north of Los Angeles.  That swath of land, known as Apricot Lane Farms, is one of the most unique places you’re likely to come across.  It teems with a life and vibrancy in stark contrast to our hectic, rushed society. In the fantastic documentary The Biggest Little Farm, we get a glimpse into the Chester’s slice of Americana—don’t miss it when it arrives at your theater (opening May 10).

The story opens with a rather harrowing sequence where John and Molly must make a difficult decision as a massive forest fire is bearing down on the farm. From there, we discover the backstory of the couple—John was originally a nature photographer and Molly was an aspiring chef—and why they chose to become part of the farming community.  In 2011, with the guidance of their beloved dog Todd, they selected an old avocado grove that had fallen into a state of disrepair.  The work was already going to be difficult, but the couple planned to have the farm’s ecosystem reawakened, involving significantly more labor. The top foot of soil needed to be reclaimed and reenergized. Trees needed to be planted based on the lay of the land. A lake needed to be created so wildlife would return to the area.  Animals such as ducks, chickens, sheep, and a unique pig named Emma needed to be acquired.  Even then, there was no guarantee things would work out.

Emma’s hungry, or she’s an entertainer. Perhaps both. (photo J Alan Sharrer)

With the help of Alan York, the farm began to take shape.  But for every triumph, there seemed to be a setback.  Emma wouldn’t eat after she had a massive litter of piglets. Coyotes decided to feast on livestock after hours. Birds swooped in to partake of the fruit crop.  Surprisingly, the Chesters learned that the solutions to their problems simply involved a different way of thinking. Those answers have helped the farm to not only survive but thrive.  Today, the farm (really seven farms in one) is incredibly diverse (250 different crops, including a section known as the Fruit Basket containing 80 different varieties of fruit trees). John mentioned they’re “treat[ing] the land as a long-term ecosystem” so it will be able to survive for multiple generations. 

The Fruit Basket (photo J Alan Sharrer)

My family had the opportunity to take a tour of Apricot Lane recently, and all their hard work is evident from the moment one steps on the farm. It’s not only beautiful, but the crops (such as their Autumn Gold oranges) and free-range eggs are awfully tasty.  The Chesters “wanted to capture the story of the farm for future generations,” and I think the documentary did a great job of it.  Chester’s penchant for photography is evident, adding a professional feel to their down-home ways. If there was anything I would’ve added, it would’ve been a few more cartoons, as they explained some of the farm’s processes in ways even a newbie like myself could understand.

As we walked to the farm’s garden, John mentioned to me that Apricot Lane is a veritable Garden of Eden. I could envision that.  But in order to get anywhere close to what things were like for Adam and Eve, we have to return to a simple life, one that eschews massive quantity for quality and takes care of the environment in a responsible manner. It sure would be fun!  Unfortunately, humanity didn’t do a very good job of listening to God’s one simple rule (see Genesis 2:16-17) and threw the whole thing away with a few ill-timed bites.  We can get pretty close to Eden 2.0, but it just won’t be the same as the original.  But for now, you should give The Biggest Little Farm a viewing—perhaps you’ll feel the same way I do.

A special thanks goes to John and Molly Chester for opening up their farm and Neon for arranging the visit.

Hostile Planet: We Will Survive

by Leave a Comment

(National Geographic)

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to view a few scenes from a new show on National Geographic called Hostile Planet (Mondays, 9 PM/8 CT).  Being an avid nature enthusiast, I was thrilled to spend some time with God’s creation since I don’t get outdoors as much I would like.  However, I found myself cringing quite a bit as I watched.  Perhaps it’s because I have an idyllic view of how nature works.  Yes, I’m sure it can get rough from time to time, but do baby birds really have to suffer the consequences of learning to fly in the form of smashing their heads repeatedly against the side of a mountain as gravity takes them hundreds of feet to the ground?  Somehow, I found myself intrigued, in a macabre sort of way.

The first episode aired on April Fools’ Day and did not bring the baby birds I remembered.  Instead, it focused on the polar regions of our planet and provided an air of familiarity in the form of penguins, seals, and bears with white fur.  I found myself transported to a winter wonderland where the narrator was describing behavioral patterns of artic wolves.  But the voice of David Attenborough’s was not there, replaced with that of outdoor enthusiast Bear Grylls instead.  Grylls made a few brief appearances in the episode, then got out of the way to let the animals and cinematography do the talking.

We’ve been trained to know that life in the Artic is brutal and that only a few animals can survive the harsh conditions. Those are put on display as male penguins stay alive while keeping an egg warm enough to hatch, then giving it enough food so that the two don’t starve to death.  This has been seen multiple times on nature documentaries.  The hostility is upped a notch when leopard seals decide to have a feeding frenzy and a baby penguin gets to fight for its life on a submerging ice floe.  It’s pretty harrowing to watch.  Artic wolves struggle to survive, but when they need to eat, they can group together and take down a baby musk ox.  When its mother stays behind to watch her offspring die, she suffers the same fate.  Is there blood?  Yup.

Outside of these two examples, Hostile Planet is more like watching a generic nature documentary, albeit with significantly better camera work (thanks to Academy Award-winning cinematographer/director Guillermo Navarro (Pan’s Labyrinth).  This is not a bad thing, but there wasn’t enough hostility for me.  Perhaps that will change in subsequent episodes.

(National Geographic/Tom Hugh Jones)

While watching the struggles of these animals—especially a polar bear attempting to navigate a never-ending maze of ice—I began to think about how life is for humans.  We might not live in the Artic, but we face struggles that seem to never go away—slogging in a dead-end job we’re unable to get out of; watching loved ones fight diseases; making ends meet for our family.  It can get to a point where we’re ready to just give up.  Yet we are able, somehow, to make it to the next sunrise.  The apostle Paul noted that for followers of Jesus, there is a hope that can be held on to in those difficult times: “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8-9 NIV).  Life can certainly be hostile, but we definitely have the ability to not only rise up, but thrive in the face of adversity.  If there’s a lesson we can learn from the penguins, polar bears, and artic foxes, that is it.  Thanks for the reminder, National Geographic.

The Story of God S3:E1 – Struggling with Evil

by Leave a Comment

(National Geographic/Maria Bohe)

As humans, we have the desire to do good, but cannot always find the ability or capacity to do so.  To this end, we walk upon the earth where a constant battle plays out in our hearts and souls.  The goal is to eventually get rid of evil in our lives.  But we fall down constantly and have to deal with the effects of sin as a result.  Often, we attempt to give these struggles a personification.

We call him the devil or Satan.

In the first episode of The Story of God (Season 3), host Morgan Freeman takes a look at who exactly the devil is and has been made out to be over the centuries.  There are some major differences between religions, yet there is one common reality: nobody wants to be filled with evil.  There’s something about the light that has the ability to penetrate darkness and yet overcome it (see John 1:5).

Freeman takes a look at three religious groups – namely, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism – and sees that the groups look at the devil in very different ways.  For the Christian, Satan is the prince of demons and is one to avoid.  Jesus himself was tempted by the devil in the Gospels as he fasted for 40 days and nights. When one is weak and hungry, there is a tendency to do things that are not in one’s best interest (example: those Snickers commercials on television).  Monks at a 5th century monastery recreate Jesus’ struggle daily in the Judean desert as they fast and constantly battle with the devil for their lives. To them, death with faith is better than life with no faith.  Thus, a living faith in God is critical in order to ward off Satan.

If it turns out that people are filled with demons and such, they must be removed to avoid the controlling influence of evil.  In the Catholic church, this means exorcisms (prayers to the soul who needs help) must exist.  Freeman interviews an individual who had gone through five years of exorcisms  to rid himself of the struggles he was facing.  It was interesting and reminded me of watching an individual be healed of demon possession while I was at a Christian festival three decades ago.

But in some faiths, the goal is to win the devil to our side.  Buddhists think in this fashion, struggling to convince his minions to become good via offerings that will tame their minds.  To this end, a person becomes their own enemy and their own protector.  Hindus focus on elevating their spirit above all over tendencies.  In their view, there is no such thing as 100% evil; a speck of light exists somewhere in a person. Thus, there is no true devil.

Satan is a finite being through the Christian tradition, having been thrown to earth after he attempted an overthrow of God’s throne (see Isaiah 14:12).  As a result, he can only be in one place at one specific time.  I get frustrated with people who constantly blame the devil for all of their individual problems when there are more than 7 billion other people on Earth—as if our struggles demand his personal attention.  It’s likely one or more of his minions—CS Lewis discussed this quite eloquently in his novel The Screwtape Letters. Satan exists—and our job as followers of Jesus is to resist his (and other demonic) advances, knowing that in the end, the result of the battle has been determined.  Spoiler alert: The good God wins. Light overcomes darkness every morning with the rising of the sun, a subtle reminder to each of us to keep struggling on.  And we will look up and keep doing just that.

Season 3 of The Story of God continues on National Geographic each Tuesday at 9 PM/8 CT.

The Story of God – Season 3: Conversations on Faith

by Leave a Comment

(National Geographic/Maria Bohe)

For the past two seasons, National Geographic has partnered with Revelations Entertainment (Madame Secretary) to help viewers answer, for themselves, questions involving God.  Entitled The Story of God with Morgan Freeman, the host (none other than Freeman himself) goes around the world to in order to find out about various religious topics including evil, miracles, and even the Apocalypse.  The show has been picked up by National Geographic for a third season and will focus this time around on deadly sins, visions of God, and that character George Clooney in O Brother, Where Art Thou? referred to as “having a bifurcated tail and carrying a hayfork”—the devil. I recently had the opportunity to talk with the three heads of Revelations Entertainment—Lori McCready, James Younger, and Morgan Freeman—about the upcoming season and what viewers can expect.

McCready mentioned that regarding the series, they felt the devil was just as important as God to cover.  It just took three seasons to have room to make it happen. To that effect, the key purpose of the show is to inspire people to have conversations about faith: how it has moved people, changed individuals, and transformed communities. To this end, the show focuses more on individual experiences versus scholar’s viewpoints. These experiences help to reveal more of a dynamism that the viewer will be able to detect.

McCreary notes that the concept of the devil was something that really surprised her during the filming.  In Christianity, for example, Jesus is tempted and resists Satan’s advances (see Matthew 4:1-11), but Buddhists are commanded to befriend the devil and his minions. Although there are unique differences between religious faiths, there are also connection points that people can use to build bridges and community, according to Younger. Freeman added, “Don’t be afraid . . . We’re not that far apart.”

The Story of God with Morgan Freeman will be shown on National Geographic beginning March 5th at 9 PM (8 PM Central).

THE FISHING HOLE: Oscars 2019

by Leave a Comment

Welp, the name of the game here at ScreenFish is MOVIES.  So the team embarked on their annual pre-Oscar chat where they discussed who WILL win and who SHOULD win on Hollywood’s biggest night!

Chris U: Alrighty! Pre-Oscar Fishing Hole Time! Who WILL win? Who SHOULD win?

Arnaldo R: Lol, I know nothing so will contribute nothing…Wakanda Forever!

Chris: I thought you saw Star Is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody.

Arnaldo: Nope, no interest in them. 2018 I saw probably 3 movies. And all 3 were with my daughter. Poppins, Spiderverse and Incredibles 2.

Chris: Let me call the easiest win first…Shallow will win Best Song. That race was over when the first trailer dropped.

Jacob S: I need to see Vice and Green Book.

Chris: Won’t get to see Vice. Didn’t play well out here in GOP-heavy Texas.  Wait, Arnaldo!  Didn’t you see Black Panther?

Arnaldo: Oh yeah, that one also. And Avengers. So five. LOL

Chris: So you saw 2 Best Animated Feature nominees. That qualifies!

Arnaldo: Spiderverse wins.

Chris: Agree 1000% percent, Incredibles 2 was very mediocre; hated the ending.

Jacob: Agree on Spiderverse. Disagree that Incredibles 2 was mediocre.

Chris: I felt no sense of real danger with the villain. Also didn’t buy her criminal machinations. Jack Jack and the raccoon was cute.  The Elastigirl/Mr. Incredible role switch was good. (Same thing has been going on in my house for the last 12 years).

Arnaldo: Incredibles 2 wasn’t better than the first.

Chris: Agreed.  15 year wait for a sequel have packed a much bigger punch.

Arnaldo: What were the other animation films nominated?

Chris: Isle of Dogs, Ralph Breaks The Internet, Mirai

Arnaldo: Oh yeah, I saw Ralph lol.  Spidey wins.

Chris: So, allegedly, Roma stands to win 4 Oscars for 1 person: Picture/Director/Cinematography/Producer.  Who HAS seen Roma?

Jacob: Saw some of Roma. I don’t read subtitles.

Chris: I liked The Favourite. Three women with varying degrees of wickedness and depravity…in corsets!

Steve N: Sooooo, you liked the wickedness and depravity? Or the corsets?

Chris: LOL!  Definitely not the corsets!  Although you do get an eyeful of Emma Stone! Very glad BlacKkKlansman didn’t get lost in the awards shuffle. It was on shaky ground after Thanksgiving but rebounded in the race after Christmas. Probably the pre-Christmas awards rush turned out to be wack. There are 3 $200 million + grossers on the list.

Darrel M: My expectation for best pic is Black Panther. It or Roma would get my #1 vote. I think best doc will go to RBG, should go to Free Solo, although Of Fathers and Sons is perhaps the most important. Cinematography to Cold War. Animated feature to Spidey. I hope Spike Lee gets director, but it will probably go to Cuaron. Actor Rami Malek (I’d prefer Christian Bale). Actress Glenn Close. Sup actor: Mahershala Ali.  Sup Actress: Regina King. Foreign Language: Roma, but I’d prefer Shoplifters.

Chris: They predict Spike will get Adapted Screenplay They’re also predicting Amy Adams over Regina King, which will INFURIATE me to no end.

Darrel: My choices for screenplays: First Reformed and Beale Street.

Chris: Hopefully Beale Street wins Score too.  That score was FANTASTIC.

Darrel: Yeah, I may throw things at the TV if it doesn’t get score.

LATER THAT EVENING, CHRIS U watches Roma on Netflix…

Chris: Well…the mainstream cinema has stepped up its game. The snobby, pretentious, talk AT YOU stuff that the elitists adore had to answer with vigor. Roma is the answer.

Chris: Cannot believe Black Panther is gonna lose to THIS!

Jacob: We agree on that.

Chris: Sound on this is probably insane in an Atmos equipped movie theatre.  I’ll give it that. My soundbar is capturing the ambiance.  I DO see why it will win.  Movie closed out with 4 of the saddest movie scenes of the year.  Can’t share without spoiling. But…yeah.  Legit gut punches.  But is that fair for it to win just off of 3 gut punching scenes when the rest is just an exercise in Ego Filmmaking? Best Foreign Film? I’d buy it. But Best Picture?  Green Book, Star, KkKlansman, Favourite, Bohemian AND Black Panther –  ALL better than this! But…I get it.  Awards Season -is for the elite. Roma is the type of film they eat up. It’s almost…WEINSTEINIAN!

Shelley M: Anybody seen Cold War? I’m seeing it tomorrow on recommendation of a friend – says it’s the best she’s seen all year.

Darrel: Cold War is very good. Outstanding cinematography. Great music. The story may keep the characters at arm’s length a bit..

Chris: As far as Best Picture, Roma will win.  Black Panther ABSOLUTELY SHOULD win.

Arnaldo: I want BP to win because I’m a comic guy and of course I LOVE the movie.

Chris:That movie transcended the movie screen and left an unprecedented and immovable footprint in the culture of the world. Chadwick’s acceptance speech at SAG said it all.  I don’t think I put this in my review. But halfway through the first viewing, I turned to my wife  and said “THIS IS A DAGGONE SHAKESPEARIAN TRAGEDY, not a comic book movie!”

Arnaldo: I also want it to win because I want the bath in the tears and whining of those who will say “it’s a PC SJW win and the only reason it won”

Chris: The thing about those folks. Those tears are because we live in a world that is leaving them behind. And it’s their fault for not getting on the train.

Arnaldo: Oh yeah I know their problem. Also their loss. BP was more than a comic book film! And no amount of tears will change that.

Join the conversation! Agree or disagree with our band of ScreenFishers? Ready to challenge their POV? Feel free to share in the comments!

The Fishing Hole: The Pros and Cons of Netflix

by Leave a Comment

Our staff has been involved in a heated discussion about the impact of Netflix on the world of cinema. While many of our staffers are pro-Netflix, Chris Utley remains decidedly anti-Netflix. Read the latest episode of our ongoing debate as we discuss Bird Box, Roma’s theatrical release strategy, and whether or not the label Streaming Cinema will catch on.

J Alan Sharrer: I’m just going to leave this here . . . an article about Netflix telling people to cut it out with all the Bird Box challenges.

Arnaldo Reyes: (facepalm) So much hype for a meh movie.

Alan S: Amen.

Chris Utley: And you’d rather I stay home and watch this (Bird Box) on Netflix?” (GIF of Tyler Perry’s “Madea” shaking her head)

Alan: Her swan song is March 1.

Chris:  . . . till his non-Madea movies flop. Brace up for that.

Steve Norton: No, we’d rather you stay home and watch quality television . . . lol

Chris: You lost me at “stay home.”

Steve: Ha. Well, I’m sure you could watch Netflix on your phone… 😛

Chris: It seems Netfixerization now has a name . . . STREAMING CINEMA. I love it. It differentiates. As it should.

Steve: Until Roma wins Best Pic?

Alan: I don’t know. If that goes too far, movie theaters are going to cry foul. Or they’ll have to change their names . . . Edwards Movies; Regal Movies; Maya Movies . . .

Arnaldo: Streaming Cinema . . . movie theaters “don’t call it Cinema.” (includes GIF telling us to get off his lawn)

Chris: Um . . .there are cinemas in LA LA LAND that proudly call themselves CINEMAS! And there’s Alamo . . . as in Alamo Drafthouse CINEMA.

Steve: That’s weird. They must show Netflix. That’s streaming cinema. The others are the talkies . . .

Chris: And . . . Roma has played in CINEMAS too. Netflix caved. 70MM prints to boot! (Oh my emoji)

Steve: Well, it played in theatres. That’s streaming cinema. I’ve seen movies on Netflix too.

Arnaldo: Netflix didn’t cave . . . they found another way to have their cake and eat it too.

Steve: I like cake.

Arnaldo: Smart business.

Chris: I can assure you that they did not stream a 70MM print.

Steve: Sorry. I’m in a mood.

Chris: Caving.

Steve: My tv is 52’’. That’s bigger than 70mm. I know that’s metric, to be fair. (NOTE: Steve lives in Canada)

Chris: They went from playing all their crap in 2 theatres unadvertised to striking 70MM & Dolby Atmos prints for theatres nationwide.

Arnaldo: They don’t need to stream it that way . . . they stream 4K. That’s what streaming is for. They also said, “Hey, let’s make some more money and show it in a different format.”

Chris: Caving like a mug! They can’t strream Atmos. Thank you . . . next.

Arnaldo: So you missed my point.

Chris: And you missed mine. They can run 4K. Awesome.

Steve: Points are dangerous. They hurt.

Chris: But running 4K and Atmos is exclusively the domain of . . . CINEMAS!

Arnaldo: No, I see your point; it was valid if it meant that Netflix only cared about streaming formats. They don’t.

Chris: They caved because (Roma director Alfonso) Curon made them cave.

Arnaldo: They care about getting more eyes on their film, so why not make it available in a different format? Not caving–just smart business.

Chris: That was Curon. He demanded the cinema release and the large format prints. They obliged. Yeah, it’s smart.

Arnaldo: Netflix now has bigger competition in streaming. And more competition to come. So get out in front and explore different avenues. Smart move.

Chris: Really . . . it’s my original point. No Oscar love until they respect the process.

Arnaldo: Meh. Oscars are overrated IMO.

Chris: They worked with a director who demanded they play ball with the process. Please don’t get it twisted. Netflix darn sure wants one.

Arnaldo: I’m sure they do. They all want one. Still overrated.

Chris: Heck . . . film itself is overrated to you, right? Comics first!

Arnaldo: Nope. I haven’t kept up on comics, they’ve gotten weak in writing lately.

Chris: If Roma gets screened as part of AMC’s Best Picture Showcase, I’ll see it. If it ain’t, I won’t.

Arnaldo: I’m a “let them all in” guy. If streaming is putting out better content than what’s being released in theaters then they should be recognized for it. Last I checked, Oscars were meant to celebrate the best in “Cinema” yet they don’t allow the best in.

Chris: I say give STREAMING CINEMA their own dang awards. Like I always say, you don’t see HBO TV movies in Oscar categories.

Arnaldo: They won’t, because then Oscars would lose more viewership. LOL.

Chris: Why give Netflix a pass?

Arnaldo: It’s not about just Netflix anymore. Oscars need to adapt. If Netflix, HBO, Hulu, Amazon etc. are putting out better quality Cinema, then should recognize it.

Chris: It’s not about movie theatres anymore. I need to adapt . . .

Arnaldo: Actors, directors, writers are flocking to them . . .

Steve: Like Canadian geese.

Chris: (nope nope nope)

Arnaldo: (GIF of Kylo Ren turning to camera, looking sinister) Let the past die.

Chris: The past ain’t the past. When the Avengers reboot premieres exclusively on Disney+ in 10 years, then I’ll adapt. Till then . . . (picture of theater) Till death do us part? 4 LIFE!

Steve: I feel like this is a conversation we’ve had before . . .  LOL – I think Chris should do a 2019 challenge where he watches 5 Netflix shows and Arnaldo should do something where he watches 5 movies of Chris’ choosing.

Chris: I watched more than that last year. Stand up comedies. I already gave you the challenge, but Jacob (Sahms) vetoed it: a Google Hangout viewing of Mad Max Fury Road.

Join the conversation! Agree or disagree with our band of ScreenFishers? Ready to challenge their POV? Feel free to share in the comments!