ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

marriage

Sex Stuff; Minecraft, Hogwarts Legacy, The Last of Us

by


A recent controversial article about sex gets pulled from The Gospel Coalition… Why is it that talking about this topic can be so difficult for the church?

In this episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we take an in-depth look at the article “Sex Won’t Save You (But It Points to the One Who Will)” by Josh Butler, and then use it as a springboard to discuss touchy topics surrounding sex and a Christian view of sex in general.

We also dig into some recent pop culture faves: Minecraft, Hogwarts Legacy and HBO’s The Last of Us.


Come along for Your Sunday Drive – quick conversation about current events, politics, pop culture and more, from the perspective of a couple of guys trying to follow Jesus.

Hosts: Matt Hill and Nate Polzin. Presented by the Church in Drive of Saginaw, MI, as often as possible. Please visit churchindrive.com and facebook.com/thechurchindrive

TIFF ’22: The End of Sex

by

In The End of Sex, husband Josh (Jonas Chernick, who also wrote the film) and his wife Emma (Emily Hampsire) are excited for their kids to go to sleepaway camp for a week so they can have some much needed time to themselves. But after their attempt to kickstart their marriage bed fizzles, the two find themselves lost in a sea of sexual confusion. Now, with the clock ticking before the girls come home, Josh and Emma fight to amp up their love lives but also must confront some difficult truths about their relationship in the process.

Directed by Sean Garrity, The End of Sex is a fairly fun and lighthearted comedy about marriage and midlife. While it?s not ?uproariously funny?, the performances are solid, especially by Hampshire and Chernick. With some solid chemistry between them, one genuinely believes that this could be any married couple who have spent the last decade attempting to balance the realities of child-rearing, work and their own personal lives. 

In fact, the best part about Sex is that it?s open conversations about the ?thing that?s hard to talk about? are designed to feel authentic. For any parent in a long-term relationship, one can?t help but empathize with Josh and Emily as they struggle to avoid the pitfalls of divorce or marital listlessness (which is potentially worse). There?s no doubt the sexuality remains important in every marriage but Garrity also acknowledges that our expectations of it need to change.

So, no. With its wild exploits and humour, The End of Sex will not be for everyone. But neither should one assume that this isn?t a comedy that takes its conversations about sex seriously. 

The End of Sex is now playing at TIFF ?22. For screening information, click here.

I Do… Until I Don’t: Is Marriage Dead?

by

I Do? Until I Don?t follows a filmmaker named Vivian (played by Dolly Wells), as she?s making a documentary about marriage and its challenges. ?She focuses her film on three dysfunctional couples ? Lake Bell and Ed Helms, who are trying to have a baby, Amber Heard and Wyatt Cenac, who have more of an open relationship, and Paul Reiser and Mary Steenburgen, who have been married for a while, determined to prove that the concept of marriage is outdated. However, as their family struggles rise to the surface, each couple is forced to re-examine their relationships and challenge Vivian?s assumptions about the nature of marriage itself.

Written and directed by Lake Bell, the film has a solid cast (Where have you been, Paul Reiser?) and a unique tone.? By blending comedy and drama with documentary elements, the film seems to defy many of the normal conventions associated with any specific genre. What?s more, it also proves to be an interesting exploration of the nature of relationships.? Though the comedy and drama are obviously heightened circumstances (as they often are in such films), the dialogue between the couples still somehow feels authentic. In a credit to Bell?s writing, the arguments, mistrust, and even moments of grace that break in between couples manage to feel grounded in reality. In doing so, the film is able to effectively explore the complexities of relationships in a way that actually demonstrates the value of spending your life with another person.

While countless other films have looked at the ?ups and downs? of relationships, I Do? set itself apart by intentionally looks at marriage as a concept. Through Vivian, Bell focuses her lens on the question of whether or not marriage is an outdated idea or a remnant of an oppressive culture.? (After all, as Vivian would argue, shouldn?t all contracts have an expiry time?) As a pastor, I found it refreshing to see a film that reminds us the importance of honoring our commitments to one another, even when things get hard. While views on marriage have changed in recent decades, I Do? reminds us that there remains value in the concept itself, allowing for vulnerability and support between partners.

Without any spoilers, it was also interesting to see how Bell shows the value of marriage without pushing against those who choose to remain single.? Too often, rom-coms give the impression that ?finding your soul mate? is the only important thing in the world but Bell manages to avoid this trap by admitting that it isn?t for everyone as well. (Incidentally, this argument again points back to the seriousness of marriage itself.)

While the story for I Do? Until I Don?t can struggle at times, solid performances from the key cast and its unique structure help the film to remain entertaining. However, in the end, the real value of the film lies in its deliberate exploration relationships at a time when our culture takes it for granted.

I Do? Until I Don?t is in theaters now.

Genius Ep. 6 – Hitting Rock Bottom

by

(National Geographic/Dusan Martincek)

One of the key points of conflict thus far on Genius, National Geographic Channel?s 10-part series on Albert Einstein (Tuesdays, 9 PM/ 8 CT), involves his marriage.? It?s obvious that Albert married Mileva mainly for her scientific mind and little more. As a result, the relationship has been spiraling downhill for a few episodes; in the meantime, Albert?s scientific career has been on an upward trajectory. When his cousin Elsa enters the picture as more than just a family relation, it?s only a matter of time before the powder keg of emotions explode.

Director James Hooks (the fourth different director of the series thus far) brings a heavily dialogue-driven perspective to the proceedings.? He begins the sixth episode by setting up Einstein?s plan to confirm that light waves bend as a result of gravity.? Albert (Johnny Flynn) has teamed up with an astronomer who will photograph the upcoming eclipse and gather data to further strengthen his theory of relativity. Problem one: the nearest location to see the full eclipse is Crimea, Russia. Now that he?s moved to Berlin and is a part of the Prussian Academy, Albert has to convince a bunch of skeptical scientists to provide funding for the trip?scientists who are ruffled by his brazen attempts to challenge their previous work. Albert gets some of the money, but Elsa (Gwendolyn Ellis) uses her clout to get the rest.

Problem two: After the trip has departed, German declares war on?you guessed it?Russia. With a load of photographic equipment in tow behind enemy lines, things aren?t going to go well for the members of the team on the train (see below).

(National Geographic/Dusan Martincek)

But there?s another issue?a Serbian scientist has been able to come up with proof that Einstein?s theory doesn?t work as it currently exists. If Einstein publishes the paper with the eclipse data, he?ll likely be discredited.

This is where Einstein?s marriage enters the discussion.? He moved the family to Berlin because he wants to be with Elsa instead?he even tells her, ?With you, it?s sunshine.? At home, [it?s always] a cloud of anger.?? But she realizes how scandalous the situation can become unless Mileva (Samantha Colley) is out of the picture. ?Mileva finds out, and Albert has to make a decision?one that will have consequences for the rest of his life.

He chooses Elsa, telling Mileva he wants a divorce.? But Mileva refuses to grant it to him.

At this point, Albert becomes even more of a jerk than one can possibly imagine, giving Mileva a written list of demands in order to keep the marriage intact.? They amount to a completely platonic, non-physical relationship?cook, clean, take care of the two kids, and leave him completely alone with his studies.? Surprisingly, she agrees to this.? When she learns of the Serbian?s negation of Einstein?s proof, she tries to tell him, but he cites the written list he wrote her and dismisses her out of hand.

Eventually, the strain is too much, and after she has a one-night stand with the Serbian scientist, Mileva agrees to separate (not divorce?this may play a role in future episodes).? Albert is elated?now he can return to Elsa.? But when he returns home, he finds it empty.? Mileva takes the children to Zurich, leaving Albert?for the first time in the series?completely broken.

Nobody wants to ever hit rock bottom in life.? But there comes a period for most people where just that occurs. What once was is not any more.? Friends have abandoned in a time when they?re needed the most. There?s really nothing left to do but surrender to God and strive to make life changes that last.? It doesn?t mean there won?t be scars, but the end will be better than the alternative.? Jesus talked about this situation in a story about a young guy who took his inheritance, blew it all on the frivolities of life, then found himself in a place where he had to resort to eating pig slop to survive.? Only then did he come to his senses and point his life in the right direction (see Luke 15:11-31).

We?ll have to see if anything arises from the final scene of the episode?Albert Einstein crying, alone, at a train station. Is this really rock bottom, or will things get even worse?

Loving – When Marriage is a Crime

by

?You do know what?s right, don?t you? Maybe you don?t.?

There was a time when two people who loved each other could not be married in some states. Even if they were legally married in another state, some states would refuse to recognize that marriage and might even consider it a crime for those people to live together as a married couple. Yes, that sounds familiar. In recent years, it dealt with the concept of marriage equality for people in same sex marriages. But half a century ago, it also applied to mixed race marriages. Loving is the story of the two people whose marriage (and their case in the courts) put an end to what we now look at as an absurd practice. In many ways, it laid the foundation for the more recent issues surrounding marriage.

L_00485.jpg

Richard (Joel Edgerton) and Mildred (Ruth Negga) Loving were married in the District of Columbia in 1958 and returned to their home in Virginia. However, because Richard was white and Mildred was African-American, Virginia law would not recognize the union. Within a few weeks they were arrested for violating state law. Advised to plead guilty, they were sentenced to a year in jail, but the sentence was suspended on the grounds that they leave the state for a period of twenty-five years. Moving to DC and raising their children was a strain, since their families were still in Virginia. In time, they moved back, but were again arrested. Eventually the ACLU learned of the case and offered to help them. In time, the case went to the Supreme Court, which struck down such laws as unconstitutional.

The case, Loving v. Virginia, is considered one of the landmark civil rights cases of the 1960s. Yet this film is not a courtroom drama. We hear almost none of the legal arguments that were made as the legal case made its way through the court system. This is not the story of the battle to overturn an unjust law?that is merely a side issue in the story. This is the story of the two people whose name is the referent of the case. Richard and Mildred were quiet people who loved each other and their families. They didn?t marry to challenge the law. They married because they loved each other and wanted to raise their children together. They didn?t seek out publicity, yet they ended up with their pictures in Life magazine for the world to see.

L_06889.NEF

It should be noted that those who defended these laws were clear that they felt that they were carrying out God?s law. The judge who sentenced them, when asked to reconsider, wrote in his denial, ?Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.? How frequently we confuse the laws we make with the divine will. What makes matters worse is that often when we claim that God is on our side, we dehumanize the people involved. They are objects?sinners?criminals. Yet at the most basic level those involved need to first be recognized as beloved children of God. That is why it is important that the film focuses on Richard and Mildred?the people, who like so many others throughout history fell in love and just wanted to be married as they shared that love. Even though Loving v. Virginia is such an important case, the really important part of the case is the Lovings?and loving.

Photos courtesy of Focus Features

Special features on the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital HD Combo pack include ‘Making?Loving,’?a look at the cast and on location, and a look back at the court case in “Loving vs. Virginia.” Director Nichols also provides a feature-length commentary.?

3.3 Who is THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN?

by

girl-on-the-train-movie-hero

This week, the Norton boys (Jason and Steve) punch their ticket with?THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN. How do we define who we are? Does the ‘perfect relationship’ really exist? Can Steve tell the difference between methods of transportation? All this and more, only on ScreenFish.

Want to continue to conversation at home? ?Click the link below to download ?Fishing for More? ? some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

3-3-girl-on-a-train

A special thanks to our Screamfish writer, Jason Norton for joining us!

9ccca989-4375-4f2c-af6b-736f9309dd20

Free State of Jones: Reap What You Sow

by

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.

Fireworks Wednesday – Marriage Iranian Style

by

Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi has developed a following in the last few years with films like The Past, About Elly, and the Best Foreign Language Oscar winner, A Separation (for which Farhadi also received a writing nomination). That means that we now get to see some of his earlier work, such as his 2006 film Fireworks, out Wednesday.

With the Iranian New Year as a backdrop, Roohi, a young bride-to-be is hired as a house cleaner for an affluent Tehran family. But she soon discovers that there are issues between the husband and wife. The wife enlists Roohi?s help in spying on her husband and her next door neighbor with whom she believes her husband is having an affair. Roohi gets caught up in shifting loyalties and in the web of lies that she begins to uncover. Worst of all, it may threaten to undo her trust in the bonds of marriage she is about to enter.

The film is structured as a thriller with bits of information and misinformation being dispensed a bit at a time. We, like Roohi, are very much in the dark about these two people and their problems. We also may have questions at the end about what should be done with that information. That gives the film just a small touch of a film noir quality in that we see a dark side of everyday life and are not quite sure how Roohi should respond to what she discovers.

Even though there may be some cultural differences, this really is a very universal film. Issues of infidelity and suspicion are common in marriages regardless of where people live. The distrust that Roohi encounters has poisoned the marriage of these two people. Will the experience spread the seeds of doubt as she enters her own marriage?

In the Shadow of Women

by

?Don?t blame me for being a man.?

What is the cost of infidelity within a marriage? Should it just be assumed that a man will wander? What about a woman? In the Shadow of Women takes a look at such questions in the lives of a young couple. Pierre (Stanislas Merhar) and Manon (Clotilde Mourau) are a pair of documentary filmmakers. They are very much in love. Manon serves in the background as Pierre advances his career. In reality, Pierre is a bit of a slug and in many ways it is Manon who is far more involved in their work.

shadow of woman1
One day, Pierre meets a young intern and begins an affair. He likes the idea of having a mistress, but also wants to maintain his marriage. But when his mistress discovers that Manon has an affair of her own, the situation becomes much more volatile.

In a world where many people claim self-actualization as a motive of doing things that may be hurtful to others (or themselves), this film shows the consequences of such an approach to life. The film is not really interested in looking for fault or for villains in the story. It merely shows us what happens and where that ends up leading for all those involved.

It is of note that the documentary Pierre and Manon are working on is about an aging man who was a part of the French Resistance during World War II. That story serves, in the end, for a way of us to see the meaning or deception within relationships?and perhaps may even point out that it is only by moving through deception and betrayal that we can find a sense of comfort that allows us to lead a life of happiness, even if it is built upon the mistakes of the past.

45 Years: Even after all those years

by

?Those memories?they?re things, aren?t they??

Memories can be the things that keep people together or tear them apart. In 45 Years, a couple about to celebrate a milestone anniversary suddenly have memories brought up that threaten their future happiness.

Key_3_45-YEARS_copyright-Agatha-A.-Nitecka

Kate and Geoff Mercer (Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay) are planning a celebration for the 45th anniversary. They know each other so well. They have been together so long that we would think they have no secrets. Kate even knows the books that Geoff has started but never finished (like his books by Kierkegaard). But one day a letter arrives from Switzerland. They have found the body of Geoff?s girlfriend prior to Kate who fell into a crevasse when she and Geoff were vacationing. Kate had known about the accident, but as Geoff becomes more and more affected by this news (he even begins smoking again), Kate begins to discover things about that relationship she never knew and those revelations push her into a bout of jealousy. As their anniversary draws nearer and Kate is busy with all the details of their party, the two are actually drifting farther and farther apart.

Key_4_45-YEARS_copyright-Agatha-A.-Nitecka

I have to admit that I think Kate may be overreacting a bit. After all, this is something that happened before the two of them ever met. Perhaps Geoff should have told her a bit more about that relationship, but it was so long ago it barely matters now. However, Geoff?s melancholy at the news of Katya?s body being found is so profound that it seems right that Kate might be taken aback. We never really learn all the issues within their relationship through the years that are triggered by this news. But then, we never really know what long buried problems will reemerge in new ways.

It may seem surprising that a relationship that has lasted so long can still be so fragile. But even though we may think we know someone because of the history we share, there may well be issues that have stayed hidden for long periods. When the specter of Katya comes into Geoff?s life anew, it brings up feelings for both Geoff and Kate that could have been simmering unrecognized for all these years: regrets, unfulfilled wishes, insecurities. We get the sense that just as Katya fell into a fissure, so too has the Mercers? marriage. Even the plant life around their home (in its winter dormancy) reflects that they have entered a season of decline, perhaps even an end.

45Years_Still91

When the anniversary party finally arrives, it is a time of great celebration. But what does it mean for Geoff and Kate? Can they cover the grief and insecurities that have grown in their lives the last few days? Is this a chance to begin again? Is it the beginning of the end? We are reminded just how frail marriage can be.

Photos courtesy IFC Films