ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Gugu Mbatha-Raw

Come Away: The Paths to Freedom

by Leave a Comment

Come_Away_07.08.18._0115_AB Keira Chansa stars as Alice Littleton in COME AWAY, a Relativity Media release. Credit: Alex Bailey / © Maginot Line, LLC 2020

Two stories, both beloved by generations. One of a girl who slips through the looking glass and finds herself in a magical world of singing flowers, a grinning cat, and a red queen. The other of the boy who wouldn’t grow up, and instead journeyed to the second star on the right and straight on to morning – never to become a man but to spend his days in play. 

In Come Away, these stories are joined in the lives of the Littleton family. Siblings Peter and Alice (Jordan Nash and Keira Chansa respectively) along with their eldest brother David (Reece Yates) spend their idyllic days creating adventures and soaking up the affection of their doting parents Rose (Angelina Jolie) and Jack (David Oyelowo). Tucked away in the country, the Littletons seem to have all the peace and contentment any family could long for – until tragedy strikes.

As they reel from grief, Rose and Jack slip into despair – Rose turning to drink and Jack retuning to his long-ago gambling past…and those debts come calling. Peter and Alice strive to hold onto the joy of youth, but Peter is burdened by his quest to save his family from the reality knocking at their door, and Alice seeks out the comfort of her high class aunt (and Rose’s sister) Eleanor (Anna Chancellor). Their paths begin to drift –  one into a temporary Wonderland and the other into the timeless Neverland. 

Come_Away_20.08.18._3412_AB (ctr) Jordan A. Nash as stars as Peter in COME AWAY, a Relativity Media release. Credit: Alex Bailey / © Maginot Line, LLC 2020

From a conceptual standpoint, the joining of these two stories was intriguing. I’ve written before how I’ve always been a fan of Peter Pan lore, so it made sense for me to check this one out. Alice in Wonderland has never been a favorite of mine so I wasn’t sure what to really expect, but this is pretty much set up as a prequel of sorts. And I think it works. The dynamics that lead Peter and Alice onto their respective paths create another level of dimension into their “why’s.” For Peter, it wasn’t just about not wanting to grow up – it was about recognizing the reality of pain and change and a way to hold onto an untainted joy. For Alice it was less about escape and more about being unsure what was real and what wasn’t, and about finding where she would feel at home. 

The casting is phenomenal, with Angelina Jolie in her element playing the once ethereal and doting mother turned despondent and dismissal of her children. David Oyelowo is engaging as a craftsman who encourages the play of his children, but still struggles with both his lower class position and debt-riddled past. Anna Chancellor (of the BBC miniseries Pride and Prejudice) is perfectly balanced between disappointed sister and doting aunt. And the children carry an impressive range of emotions and believability. Rounding out this stellar cast is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as the adult Alice narrating, and Michael Caine as an acquaintance from Jack’s past. Together they tell a dynamic story of what happens when the veil of sanctuary is ripped away.

Come Away_0209_R Gugu Mbatha-Raw stars as adult Alice Littleton in COME AWAY, a Relativity Media release. Credit: Alex Bailey / © Maginot Line, LLC 2020

Overall, I found Come Away engaging and thought provoking. I imagine I’ll uncover even more of the treasures (both real and fanciful) that Peter and Alice sought in the midst of trial and transition with a second or third watch – something that is definitely on my list.

Motherless Brooklyn: Pulling at the Thread of Power

by Leave a Comment

Directed and adapted for the screen by Edward Norton, Motherless Brooklyn tells the story of Lionel Essrog (Norton), a Brooklyn detective in post-war New York. Working with street smart private investigator Frank Minna (Bruce Willis), Lionel (who also goes by the name Brooklyn) and his team uncover the truth for hire. However, when Minna is shot and left for dead, Lionel determines to unravel the mystery, plunging him into a Brooklyn underworld riddled with crime, corruption and colourful characters. As his quest for truth leads him further up New York’s ladder of power, Lionel’s investigation is complicated by his Tourette syndrome, which leaves him prone to compulsive behavioural tics and inappropriate verbal outbursts.

Adapted from the 1999 novel of the same name, Brooklynis a tightly written throwback film to classic Hollywood’s noir films like The Big Sleep or Chinatown. With a stellar cast and tightly written script, Norton creates a world which feels both foreign and familiar. While the film transports the audience back to 1950s New York, it also feels current in today’s culture, highlighting racial tensions and the growing divide between the upper and lower classes. In Motherless Brooklyn, power is a drug that gives people the freedom to ‘do whatever they want, whenever they want’ but it’s also short in supply. Divided by racial and financial lines, Brooklyn is a city on the brink of chaos.Those that have little power are struggling to make their voices heard while those who have much fight ferociously to maintain it. 

As Brooklyn himself, Norton’s performance is sharp, engaging, and loving. At the same time, the character becomes a metaphor for the town for which he’s named. Plagued by Tourette Syndrome, Brooklyn feels as though there’s a chaos in his mind that bubbles over and has to be released. While the casual passerby may not immediately notice Brooklyn’s struggle, his mental chaos inevitably reveals itself. With this in mind, the film clearly draws a line between his character and the city itself, as its own unseen chaos can’t help but overflow from the underground. Diffused lighting and growing shadows point to tension between light and darkness, as Brooklyn (the character) attempts to uncover the truth about Brooklyn (the city). Like his compulsion to pull on the threads of his sweater, Brooklyn also must unravel the web of deception until the facts about his city is revealed.

Furthermore, the film also does not shy away from engaging in the complexities of Brooklyn’s mental health issues. Bullied as a child for his affliction, Brooklyn has always been the one that was pitied by others. After Minna’s death, Brooklyn becomes seen by others primarily for his mental affliction as they constantly try to ‘look out’ for him, rationalizing that he needs their protection. Frustrated by his inability to control his mind and constantly reminded of the burden he is by others, Brooklyn remains ashamed and embarrassed by his behaviour. 

Conversely, however, while clearly struggling with his mental illness, he also recognizes its value. Despite the chaos within him, his Tourettes is also what makes him a great detective by forcing him to ‘pull on the thread’ of truth and allowing him to retain incredible amounts of information. What’s more, the film even paints a portrait of Tourette syndrome with an element of beauty by highlighting the musical aspect of Brooklyn’s mental chaos. (For example, this comparison is highlighted when, in one particularly poignant scene, Brooklyn’s inadvertent vocables cause him to become a participant in a jazz ensemble.)

Featuring strong performances and well-written script, Motherless Brooklyn is an entertaining and engaging return to the noir genre. Under the Norton’s direction, the film is also impressive visually, as the shadows and darkness of New York’s underworld are constantly warring against the light of truth. 

Motherless Brooklyn unravels the mystery in theatres on November 1st, 2019.

TIFF ’19: Motherless Brooklyn

by Leave a Comment

Written and directed by Edward Norton, Motherless Brooklyn tells the story of Lionel Essrog (Norton), a Brooklyn detective in post-war New York. Working with street smart private investigator Frank Minna (Bruce Willis), Lionel (who also goes by the name Brooklyn) and his team uncover the truth for hire. However, when Minna is shot and left for dead, Lionel determines to unravel the mystery, plunging him into a Brooklyn underworld riddled with crime, corruption and colourful characters. As his quest for truth leads him further up New York’s ladder of power, Lionel’s investigation is complicated by his Tourette syndrome, which leaves him prone to compulsive behavioural tics and inappropriate verbal outbursts.

Adapted from the 1999 novel of the same name, Brooklyn is a tightly written throwback film to classic Hollywood’s noir films like The Big Sleep or Chinatown. With a stellar cast and tightly written script, Norton creates a world which feels both foreign and familiar. While the film transports the audience back to 1950s New York, it also feels current in today’s culture, highlighting racial tensions and the growing divide between the upper and lower classes. Divided by racial and financial lines, Brooklyn is a city on the brink of chaos.Those that have little power are struggling to make their voices heard while those who have much fight ferociously to maintain it. 

As Brooklyn himself, Norton’s performance is sharp, engaging, and loving. At the same time, the character becomes a metaphor for the town for which he’s named. Diffused lighting and growing shadows point to tension between light and darkness, as Brooklyn (the character) attempts to uncover the truth about Brooklyn (the city). Like his compulsion to pull on the threads of his sweater, Brooklyn also must unravel the web of deception until the facts about his city is revealed.

Featuring strong performances and well-written script, Motherless Brooklyn is an entertaining and engaging return to the noir genre. Under the Norton’s direction, the film is also impressive visually, as the shadows and darkness of New York’s underworld are constantly warring against the light of truth. 

Motherless Brooklyn is currently playing at the Toronto International Film Festival. For more screenings, click here. 

A Wrinkle in Time: Put on Some Glasses

by 9 Comments

Mrs. Which and Meg Murry work on finding balance.

“It was a dark and stormy night.”

Thus begins the 1962 Newbery Award-winning novel A Wrinkle in Time, written by Madeleine L’Engle. Over the years, this coming-of-age fantasy about Meg Murry and three oddly-named witches has captivated the thoughts and imaginations of millions of children worldwide. In Disney’s new adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, Director Ava DuVernay (Selma) has taken L’Engle’s vision and created a dazzling tale of hope and love fit for today’s younger generation.  We adults might find something to take from it as well—if we view the story from the eyes of a child.

A Wrinkle in Time is a very challenging work to translate from page to screen.  It has a heavy scientific focus, takes place on numerous planets, contains fantastical creatures, and personifies the constant battle between darkness and light in an abnormal manner. There are a lot of missteps that can occur along the way, as Disney themselves learned when they attempted a direct-to-TV adaptation of Wrinkle in 2003.  L’Engle’s thoughts? “I expected it to be bad, and it [was].”

I’ve learned over the last few weeks how few individuals have actually read the book (DuVernay and Oprah Winfrey only read it before accepting their roles in the film), so to assume knowledge of the basic plot isn’t a good idea. So here’s a quick summary:

A young girl named Meg (played by Storm Reid) has to deal with being a misunderstood child while living in a home with her two scientist parents (Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and her brainiac younger brother, Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe).  Four years after her dad goes missing while attempting to discover a new method of time travel, Meg and Charles Wallace are visited by three beings—Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), and Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey)—who tell them their father is alive and take them on a trip across the universe (along with Calvin O’Keefe [Levi Miller], a student at Meg’s school) in an attempt to save him from IT, the embodiment of evil in the form of a pulsating human brain. Along the way, Meg learns much from the three beings about faith, love, and life itself.

Which is which? (L-R: Mrs. Who; Mrs. Which; Mrs. Whatsit)

In the film, Reid admirably shows Meg’s sensitivity, uncertainty, and fortitude of someone coping with the loss of her father and her desire to get him back, though she doesn’t know what she’s capable of.  School isn’t easy in general, much less when you’re picked on and harassed by other kids as well as the principal.  Meg is a storm (pun intended) waiting to be unleashed, which aptly depicts the opening line of the book. The beings—happy-go-lucky Mrs. Whatsit, wisdom-spouting Mrs. Who, and sage Mrs. Which, encourage Meg and her group along the way.  They’re “in search of warriors . . . who can bring hope back.”  Witherspoon shows some comedic range as Whatsit while Winfrey comes across as larger than life–literally at times.  Kaling’s Mrs. Who isn’t given enough to work with and falls a bit flat for me.  Zach Galifianakis, as the Happy Medium, provides some levity to the film.

But for me, the film rises and falls on the shoulders of 5 year-old Charles Wallace.  McCabe doesn’t disappoint, absolutely stealing every scene he’s in.  He’s charming, ebullient, and when possessed by IT, powerful and frightening. Pine’s portrayal of Dr. Alex Murry is scientific yet human; he gets to experience some of the same harassment Meg feels.  It makes their reunion more touching. Mbatha-Raw provides necessary realism in her marriage to Dr. Murry through a number of flashbacks, but doesn’t do much else.

Wrinkle’s set designs are varied and interesting, from the earth-like majesty of Uriel to the claustrophobic confines of CENTRAL Central Intelligence. Her costume choices for the witches are majestic yet unique, as Winfrey sports jewels for eyebrows and Kaling’s Mrs. Who has a familiar phrase embroidered all over her outfit (see Isaiah 41:10). Witherspoon’s character, true to form, looks like she grabbed some sheets off Mrs. Buncombe’s clothesline and fashioned a dress from them.

DuVernay is willing to take some significant risks with the movie, which is a fancy way of saying that purists of the book will mostly be happy, but not with everything.  The scientific aspect is played up heavily, to fantastic effect in Camazotz (the bouncing ball scene is appropriately scary and nervy). Mrs. Whatsit’s transformation into a unicornish beast on Uriel in the book becomes something akin to a leafy stingray (impressive-looking nevertheless).  Fortinbras the dog makes an appearance, but Meg’s twin brothers Sandy and Dennys do not.  Aunt Beast is basically nowhere to be found.

The faith aspect was a major part of L’Engle’s book, as she directly quoted passages from the Bible in sections. You’ll hear a more universalistic view on faith in the film as Mrs. Who quotes Gandhi, Buddha, and even Outkast. I would’ve loved a piece of Scripture in there to balance things out a bit, but perhaps the point to be made is to look deeper for the truth—just like Meg has to do in finding her father and combating the IT (there is one particular scene that may give those below the age of six [6] nightmares—parents be warned).  Sometimes we have to believe before we can see, and as we get older, we have a more difficult time accomplishing this.  There’s a reason Jesus said that “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it” (Mark 10:15).

This, in my opinion, is why DuVernay said the film was geared to kids age 8-12—not adults.  It also explains why my 15-old daughter enjoyed the film more than I did.  Adults are likely going to see Wrinkle in a different light than their younger counterparts–and possibly pillory DuVernay in the process.  But perhaps the right thing to do is step back, take a deep breath, and view A Wrinkle in Time through the lenses of Mrs. Who—lenses that remind us that children are the future and they will realize their potential before we know it (see: survivors of the Parkland HS shooting in Florida).  And if we do, we’ll realize L’Engle (and DuVernay) have created works that have a whole lot more to offer than at first glance.

Special features include bloopers, deleted scenes, music videos (DJ Khaled with Demi Lovato, Chloe x Halle), commentary from DuVernay, Jim Whitaker, and Jennifer Lee, and a making of featurette starring DuVernay, Oprah, and other members of the cast and crew called “A Journey Through Time.”

The Cloverfield Paradox: When Action Impacts All

by Leave a Comment

I don’t do horror movies.

I don’t do loud clangs, shrieks, or shadows that jump across the screen. I especially don’t do creepy sci-fi films. Movies that mess with time, reality, or my basic understanding of physics (which is very, very basic) rarely make it to my queue. In all seriousness, George of the Jungle is one of my all-time favorite movies if that says anything about my standards.

So it probably isn’t a shock I’ve not seen the previous Cloverfield films or a single episode of Lost. And yet here I am, contributing today regarding The Cloverfield Paradox, the Netflix release of J.J. Abrams’s newest Cloverfield installment.

Yeah, I don’t know how I got here either. But since I did, let’s roll with it. I’ll keep it spoiler free too…if anything because I’m not exactly sure what I witnessed.

Despite my nonchalant “sure I’ll give it a go” attitude, I was hooked 6 minutes in. With the world on the verge of self-destruction, tensions high across nations due to dwindling energy resources, Ava Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw is a-mazing) accepts a position on an international mission to do something I can only describe as “mine” energy from space. And it’s a truly international crew, so props to Abrams for bringing together the cast of David Oyelowo (Kiel), Daniel Brühl (Schmidt), Ziyi Zhang (Tam), John Ortiz (Monk), Chris O’Dowd (Mundy), Aksel Hennie (Volkov), Elizabeth Debicki (Jensen), and Roger Davies as Michael. The cast makes this movie.

Of course, things go horribly wrong once they finally harness the needed energy after two years of unsuccessful attempts. Cue lots of banging, fires, and the beginning of creepy things. I admit there might have been a scene or two where I had to close my eyes – the sounds were enough and one scene in particular involved worms. Just… ew. No.

Once the initial “avert my eyes,” scenes cycled, I was sucked right back in. How does Jensen know Hamilton? What is Mundy’s arm up to? Where did the Earth go? Like I mentioned in the beginning, I tend to steer clear of movies that propose alternate realties and concepts such as there is a second Earth, with a second crew, trying to solve for the same problem but within a very different reality. But I was so wrapped up in Hamilton and the crew, I found myself actually engaged.

Now I have seen enough non-jittery science fiction to confidently say that there are plenty of “standard sci-fi movie moments,” like fires, crashes, doors getting stuck, people dying, and “are we losing our minds or is this really happening” conversations. And if you’re an Abrams fan, you’ll also notice his trademark homages to earlier science fiction films, (such as the original Alien movies), his continued exploration of inter-dimensional interactions, and the overall “is this real or not” feeling. So if that combination works for you, I don’t think you’ll be wasting your time if you check it out and move on.

But personally, I kind of sat in an awed state at the conclusion. Not so much because the movie itself was anything spectacular (again, I think the most compelling aspect of it all was the cast), but because I began to consider how my individual actions can affect others.

I’m not versed enough in science to propose any thoughts on the possibility of alternate realities or if my every-day decisions change the fate of another me somewhere across the cosmos. I’m not going that deep here. But I do believe that humanity is designed to crave interaction and relationship, which gives me pause and forces me to think beyond my personal interests and instead about how what I do, what I say, how I act, etc., can impact someone else.

More than likely my actions will never alter the fate of the entire human race. Yet every day I am presented with opportunities to influence the course of any one person’s journey. Not because I have control or am powerful or that persuasive, but because I am a representative of Jesus Christ. How I respond in times of crisis, how I rejoice in times of excitement…even how I greet each person who travels across my path…at any moment what I say or do can be used for help or for harm.

In the book of Matthew, chapter 22, verses 36-40, Jesus is answering the question of “what is the greatest commandment?” To paraphrase, Jesus responds with “love God with everything you have and everything you are, and love others as you love yourself.” For me this means each action I take and each word I speak needs to ladder back up as either loving God or loving others. Even if I don’t “love” the person on the other end of my action, or even know them, I still love God. And my behavior toward that other person is reflective of that love of God.

I’m not saying I have to sit and analyze every detail of my actions and how they might one day a long time from now have a negative impact on some stranger’s life. That’d be practically impossible.  But I am saying that as a Christian, it’s important that I choose my words and actions carefully.

Miss Sloane – Politics behind the curtain

by Leave a Comment

“You cross the line when you don’t treat people with respect. You’re smart enough to know that. You just don’t care.”

What an amazing political year this has been! One of the things that have led to the strangeness of this election cycle is a mistrust in the very institutions that make up the political landscape. We suspect that legislation gets passed more because of money and lobbying than because of the will of the people or even because of ideology. Miss Sloane takes us into that world of lobbying, persuasion, and corruption. Does that make this sound like a cynical film? You may need to withhold judgment until it all plays out.

Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is a one of the most successful lobbyist at a high-power firm in Washington, DC. She is known not only for her success rate, but for her thoroughness and scrupulousness. She does not just present information, she manipulates people and issues. She knows all the ways to bend the rules—even how to break them without getting caught. When she is approached by the gun lobby to help get women to oppose a bill that would add restrictions to gun sales, she not only refuses, she quits the firm she works at and hires on to a boutique firm with various young idealists to fight for the passage of the bill. This is a game of moves and countermoves that Elizabeth orchestrates. She only cares about winning. She doesn’t care who she steps on in the process—even those she works with may only be pawns for her to sacrifice.

But the opposition at her old firm knows her well. They can anticipate her moves. Worse, they know where all the skeletons are hidden. They are not above throwing her to the wolves to neutralize her. When the film opens, she is taking the Fifth in front of a Senate committee investigating her corrupt practices. Her reputation for good or ill becomes the key to whether this bill will pass or not. But she always saves her “trump card” until after the opponent has played their trump. Will she have what it takes to pull off a win this time?

While the film deals with the always present issue of guns in America, that is really only the setting for the personal story of this ethically-challenged woman and the industry she is a part of. It does present arguments about the gun issue, but that really isn’t the point of the film. It is really about what lengths Elizabeth will go to in order to achieve her goal. In fact, we don’t really know what motives her. Is it the issue, or just the chance to prove she can beat the most powerful lobby in the country?

Jessica Chastain is the real power that drives this film. The supporting cast (including Sam Waterston, Alison Pill, John Lithgow, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and Mark Strong) all add depth to the story, but this really is Chastain’s film, and she carries it extremely well. The intensity of her character, and at times her vulnerability, are what really draw us into the story.

German statesman Otto von Bismark told us, “Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.” That reflects the messiness inherent in the political process—a messiness that can easily lead to a cynicism that makes us doubt the whole process, and those who are part of the process. Elizabeth Sloane has a ready answer that she can quickly recite when someone accuses her of cynicism. She doesn’t so much deny the charge as dismiss it as irrelevant. But do we think cynicism is the way we should look at the political process? Have we assumed that approach, even though in a less obvious intensity? What about idealism? Should it have a role in the way politics plays out? Amazingly, for all the cynicism that seems to permeate the story, in the end we discover this really is an idealistic film in disguise.

Photos courtesy EuropaCorp – France 2 Cinema

Free State of Jones: Reap What You Sow

by Leave a Comment

Newton (Matthew McConaughey) carries Daniel (Jacob Lofland) across an active battlefield

The Civil War wasn’t the greatest period in the history of the United States, as most people will attest.  A country founded on liberty fought over whether liberty was to be fully extended to all people. Yet in Mississippi, a unique situation developed—a group of runaway slaves and war deserters took over a sizable area of the state independent of either Union or Confederate control.  In director Gary Ross’s newest film, Free State of Jones, he chronicles its leader Newton Knight and the community he established.  There’s some good stuff to be found here, but the film doesn’t quite know what it wants to be and suffers as a result.

Ross begins with a riveting sequence where a company of Confederate soldiers march up a hill and face the Union in battle.  It’s bloody and graphic and sets the tone for the rest of the film.  Newton Knight (Matthew McConaughey), a farmer turned Confederate nurse/medic, wants to help as much as possible.  But when his younger cousin Daniel (Jacob Lofland) is taken out by a sharpshooter’s bullet, Newton decides to take him home to his mother. This is known as desertion, putting a death sentence on Newton’s head.  To keep from having this happen, he flees into the swamp and meets a cast of other runaways—including slaves like Moses (Mahershali Ali), who wears a spiked collar placed on him by his former master.  Slowly, Knight begins to gather their trust and the group begins to add members while defending themselves. Knight’s wife Serena (Keri Russell) flees to Georgia with the kids while Newton begins to help a slave girl named Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) learn to read.  Slowly, she becomes a replacement for Serena.

The group continues to grow and finally has the attention of the Confederate army.  After watching one of his families surrender to the army (and later hang from a tree), they stage a well-orchestrated ambush of the Confederate company, earning a victory in the process.  From here, the Free State of Jones (named after Jones County, Mississippi) is created and its inhabitants—both slave and free—are treated as equals.

The resolution of the film is not what you’d expect—and that’s where Ross makes a major misstep. You see, Free State of Jones would play fantastically as an action film along the likes of a Confederate version of Robin Hood.  But Ross adds in significant elements of a documentary, altering the pacing and changing the feel of the film to a history lesson. As if this isn’t enough, Ross then adds a third aspect to the story—a court case 85 years later involving one of Knight’s descendants.  This is shown in short snippets and is thrown in irregularly, further breaking the flow of the film.  What started out as a battle film is changed into a question of whether Newton’s descendant is part African-American (implying he had a child with Rachel).  One piece on its own would’ve been fine, but all three become a disjointed mess.  Too bad.

FREE STATE OF JONESAs for the other aspects of the film, I think they were well done. The cinematography is outstanding and conveys the time frame well.  The music is subtle enough to impact yet not overpower.  McConaughey is fantastic as Newton Knight, revealing a noticeable and believable shift in becoming the leader and face of the Free State of Jones. Mbatha-Raw, likewise, does well as Rachel, adding an air of cautiousness and enthusiasm to her role.  Sadly, Russell is almost an afterthought in the film, seeing most of her screen time in an awkward conversation with Rachel over a crying baby. It’s unfortunate that the directing and editing let this film down.

For Newton, the biggest point for him involves sowing that which one reaps (Galatians 6:7), since he was a farmer. He even bases the newly created state on this principle, allowing all people to have land and care for it—including the freed slaves.  In addition, he helps to empower the least to be more than they could ever be.  Consider the following clip, where Newton asks Moses point blank what he is–a child of God.  When a person becomes one of God’s children, they are transformed into something they could not be on their own.  The apostle Paul puts it this way: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (1 Corinthians 5:17 NKJV). They can’t be owned (as Newton says) and don’t have to worry about the past, but can look confidently toward the future and the hope Jesus offers.  You see this later in the film when Moses gets his family back and is seen cultivating a field all his own.  It gives freedom a meaning foreign to many of us today.  It’s also a good reminder for us to not take what we’ve been given for granted. Look confidently into an uncertain future and trust God.