• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Film
  • DVD
  • Editorial
  • About ScreenFish

ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Interviews
  • News
  • OtherFish
  • Podcast
  • Give

religious

The Dark Tower Ending Explained

June 28, 2018 by Matt Hill 1 Comment

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

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

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

by way of a mini-review:
i dug it 🙂

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

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

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

The Dark Tower Ending Explained

so what does the
series
and its ending
mean?

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

The Dark Tower is
a story about stories

what about stories?

they end.

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

to shoot straighter:
stories resolve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So What?

great question 🙂

one this post
won’t address

but i encourage you
to ask more deeply:

why do stories resolve?

why must they?

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

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

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

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

 

Filed Under: Books, OtherFish, Reviews Tagged With: book, childe roland, Christian, crimson king, ending, explained, interpretation, jake, meaning, metaphor, movie, religious, resolution, roland, roland deschain, spiritual, Stephen King, the dark tower, tower

The Ready Player One “Easter Egg” That Bypasses the Backlash

April 18, 2018 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

this quick post plays
through three short stages

the third contains
the Easter egg

all three potentially
contain SPOILERS


Stage One: “Microreview”

if you haven’t seen Ready Player One
(or read Cline’s book),
you really should;
particularly if you’re the
target demo:
a “nerd,” “geek,”
pop culture afficionado
of a certain stripe
(70s-80s gaming, sci-fi, etc.)
(more on this later)

but even if you’re not
the target demo du jour,
you should still see it,
cuz it’s a fun,
eminently Spielbergian,
bombastic popcorn flick
(tho, prepare to
suspend plenty disbelief
and prepare to groan
at the too-neat ending)


Stage Two: “Context”

if you’ve seen this movie already –
more certainly if you’ve
read the book,
have this kind of thing
on your radar, etc. –
you may have a sense of the
Ready Player One backlash
that’s been afoot:

e.g. 1: Steven Spielberg’s Oblivious, Chilling Pop-Culture Nostalgia in “Ready Player One”

e.g. 2: The Ready Player One backlash, explained

(those two pieces are helpful
primers and there are others)

the gists of the criticisms
have to do with
Cline, Spielberg, or both
succumbing to certain
negatives of nostalgia and some
nasty exclusivity concerning
particular pet passions
(this involves something
called “Gamergate”)

i think there’s obv
plenty valid points here,
but delving in fully
is beyond this post

(for some
thoughts on nostalgia, see my
good, bad, ugly: nostalgia edition)

(for some
thoughts on how groups
(like gamers)
crave things like
ownership, community, etc. –
relevant to them
playing out negatively
re: Gamergate – see my
a pop invite to the church)


Stage Three: “Spiritual < Spiritual”

while in general i agree with
Rob Bell that
“everything is spiritual,”
i think some
desires
(longings,
hungers,
senses of privation,
experiences of lack,
problems,
issues,
whatever)
are more clearly so

in this instance, by “spiritual”
i mean something like
“essential to our being
as humans;”
i also mean something like
what’s at play here:

“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” ~ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

here, in other words,
spiritual = supernatural

and HERE is where we discover
the titular EASTER EGG –
the “secret” that “saves”
Ready Player One
from some potential negatives
brought up in Stage Two….

Ready Player One, really,
is about these spiritual/supernatural
longings/desires;
specifically, i see
The OASIS
(the movie’s VR game world)
as a proxy for
desires for
things like:
love, belonging, community,
escape, freedom, victory,
meaning, enjoyment, passion

Ready Player One
says this about people:
people need
love/meaning/etc.
and they’ll do
whatever it takes
to get it
(including create
fictional worlds where they do)

but now notice how
Ready Player One‘s
counterintuitively anti-gaming ending –
when we’re told something like
“the real world is what’s real” –
also says this about people:
real (read: spiritual) problems require
real (read: spiritual) solutions,
and *bigger* ones, too

in other words: spiritual < spiritual

it may seem like The OASIS
can give Wade (the main character)
what he needs,
but nah: he needs Samantha (the girl)
irl for that;
in this same way,
our ultimately
spiritual/supernatural
desires for
love/meaning/etc.
must be “solved” by something/someone
ultimately
spiritual/supernatural –
and *bigger –
too

and,
to me,
with this Easter egg
of perspective in hand,
Ready Player One –
though imperfect –
communicates something
very valid,
very real
about being a human

(for some
thoughts on how
humans often
sneak these kinds of
Easter eggs
into pop culture, see
what it means that you like things that are like other things that you like
and
Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God)

 

 

Filed Under: Editorial, Film, Reviews Tagged With: 1980s, atari, backlash, Christian, easter egg, ernest kline, gamergate, games, gaming, God, interpretation, Jesus, meaning, media, movie, negative, nostalgia, OASIS, ready player one; steven spielberg, religious, review, spiritual, video game

Three Reasons Style Matters, According to Baby Driver

July 29, 2017 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

you know what matters?

style.

whyzzat?

well, i could tell you
why i think so,
but instead
let me give you
three reasons style matters,
according to the
sleekly-stylish-
yet-(ironically)-
ever-so-serviceable
Baby Driver

ONE – style’s stylish

check out this story:
a bunch of robbers
rob some stuff
and almost get away with it,
but they end up
turning on each other –
as robbers do –
and then one of them
makes it out in the end (kinda)

sounds good, right?

now picture all that again, but
hear:
supercool throwback soundtrack,
see:
sexies like Jon Hamm,
wear:
shades, always shades

(i could go on)

get the point?

same story,
but do it with style –
that elusive,
hard-to-define-
but-you-know-it-
when-you-see-it
*it,*
which Baby Driver
simply ooooozes with –
and everything is
just so much more
. . . stylish . . .
so much more . . .
. . . better

TWO – everything is style

go back to the story above

it’s pretty basic, right?

looking back at some other
Edgar Wright movies,
they’re all kinda that way, right?
Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz,
The World’s End,

all awesome, imo,
(in a lot of people’s o, tbh),
but all generally
formulaic,
got plots you’d see coming,
“work out in the end,” etc. –
all basically basic, yeah?

but this isn’t a negative,
no, this is the point:
at the bottom,
everything is this way –
especially stories –
and there is something
essential and ancient and
meaningful and
not-to-be-missed
about that fact
(i.e. we need to ask
why is it this way?)

well then, what makes
different stories different?
(cuz they do be different)

style.

style:
the different clothes
you put on the
different iterations of the
same body

all these Edgar Wright films
are very different, sure,
but it’s their styles, really,
that make them so –
a zombie flick,
a buddy cop flick,
an apocalypse flick,
a heist flick,
etc. –
while the basicality
of the stories themselves,
of story itself,
remains basically constant

so: everything is the same,
yet,
everything is different,
cuz style;
therefore,
everything is style
(and style is everything)

whoa.

THREE – (good) style wins

so, for the scorekeepers,
so far we’ve meant
“style” as in
that indefinable cool,
and “style” as in
type or kind,
but for this third thing,
we mean “style” as in
the way a person is –
his/her character
or even lifestyle  –
as in “that’s my style”
or “that’s not my style”

in Baby Driver,
it’s not Baby’s style
to kill people;
it’s really not even Baby’s style
to rob people –
he does that cuz
he’s gotta

in other words,
in Baby Driver,
Baby is a good person,
a moral person,
a just person who
tries doing what’s right,
even tho
he sometimes don’t

and this fact allows
Wright to say:
(good) style wins

bad guys get theirs and
good guys get theirs
(though they may need some
lesson learning along the way –
though they might could use some
r   e   d   e   m   p   t   i   o   n
(might couldn’t we all))

(good) style wins

one reaps what
one sows,
(ultimately, eventually)
justice prevails,
yada yada

(good) style wins

cuz good > evil

you know,
(good) style wins – 
that same basic story,
again
(surprise)
(but, again, why?)

so, to sum and say goodbye,
you should do a few things:

  1. check out “Cruising with BABY DRIVER” 
    for even more analytic goodness
  2. stream that supersweet
    Baby Driver soundtrack
  3. see the movie, obv,
    which is excellent,
    so’s you can
    see all these style insights
    in person, yourself, and
    ask those couple “why?” questions
    from above,
    plus other interrelated ones
    that might come
    (like “am i stylish?”
    “what style of the story
    do i be in?”
    “what’s my style
    and do it win?”
    and so on
    and on

Filed Under: Editorial, Film, Reviews Tagged With: analysis, Baby Driver, Christian, Edgar Wright, film, hot fuzz, Jon Hamm, Kevin Spacey, meaning, morality, movie review, religious, Shaun of the Dead, spiritual, style, stylish

comedy needs Crashing

April 21, 2017 by Matt Hill 5 Comments


now, if you’ve
Netflix, you’ve
noticed a
number of
new stand-up specials
nestling about the
new releases

i do and have,
and dig the comedy,
and so recently dug
Chappelle, Louis C.K.,
Jo Koy, Amy Schumer;
got eyes on others

i also dig on
Pete Holmes,
and so dug
season one
of Crashing on HBO,
which is
Judd Apatow produced,
and stars comic
Pete Holmes
as himself –
a person,
not incidentally
to the show,
who happens to have
some semblance
of oh-so-quaint
Christian faith

and this is
just
it:

the confluence of
Holmes’ perspective
and a certain “typical”
comedic perspective –
generally hilarious,
of course,
but also
sardonic, cynical,
melancholic and
world-worn and weary,
endlessly observational
when it comes to
finding problems,
but seldom (apparently)
when it comes to
actually addressing them,
actually living with them
in the day-to-day
(other than offering
its own oddly biblical
and plenty true
pseudo-spiritual
prescription of
“just laugh through it”) –
just *struck* me

now it strikes me:
“confluence” isn’t even
the right word;
something like
“incongruence”
is better;
something like
“juxtaposition”

it’s the dissimilarity
that struck me
between, e.g.,
a Louis C.K. –
who, no matter how
much i love him,
comes off, sadly, like a
man miserable
because he’s
smart enough
to see the world
as it is, but
faithless to the
point of having
no recourse
but misery –
and a Holmes,
with all his
boy-in-the-big-city
optimism, his
bright-eyed hopefulness,
his faith that
may not be perfect
or make everything perfect,
and which will
probably understandably
evolve over the series, as it
apparently understandably
has over his actual life,
but which nevertheless
addresses the day-to-day,
affects it, affects him,
affects those around him,
rousing responses of
“D’awww, you’re a
‘God person!'”
as Sarah Silverman quips
in a stand-out episode

and now it strikes me:
“struck me” isn’t even
the right way to say it

it doesn’t just “strike me,”
this incongruence,
it makes me long for
the world –
that of stand-up comics
and the rest of us –
to also see and notice
this incongruence
and conclude:
faith is still a live option

it is an option
that real people
still actually choose,
and when they do,
it actually affects things

when they do,
they still may
laugh through tears
with the comics,
as we all unfortunately
must in this world,
but as they do,
they do so with
the ultimate end to tears
in mind –
the ultimate end
which those without faith
do not,
unfortunately
cannot see

[SPOILER]
at the end of
season one of Crashing,
comedian Artie Lange
dives into a baptismal pool
(it’s a whole thing
you’d have to watch to get)

all i’m saying is:
there are still
baptismal pools

there are still
baptismal pools,
and entering them
is still a thing that happens,
and when it does,
other things –
brighter things –
can also happen

Filed Under: Current Events, Editorial, Reviews, Television Tagged With: Christian, comedy, Crashing, Dave Chappelle, HBO, Judd Apatow, Louis CK, Netflix, Pete Holmes, religion, religious, special, spiritual, stand-up

not knee-jerking over Deadpool (or in general)

February 19, 2016 by Matt Hill Leave a Comment

ty0neic0o4jqee5oms8e

what do you think
the “typical Christian review”
of Deadpool is like?

[Google if you wish . .
go ahead, i’ll wait]

perhaps you correctly predicted
that many “Christian reviews”
focus on its rating

[UNNECESSARY SPOILER:
Deadpool is unabashedly R-rated,
prolifically profane,
conspicuously sex-laden,
intentionally irreverent,
vehemently violent,
et cetera, et cetera]

in fact,
maybe surprisingly,
not only are
“Christian critics”
focused on the rating,
so are most other critics
and the film industry
in general,
leading to a
digital deluge
of conversations
and articles about how
Deadpool is
“kicking the door open”
for R-rated superhero flicks

[Google it if you want . .
go ahead, i’ll wait]

but here’s the thing:
why?

why has this become
the conversation to have
about this movie?

for the larger culture,
perhaps we can
chalk it up to just the
basic need to have a fresh story

i mean,
if the story isn’t
“dirty Deadpool!”
or whatever,
what else is there to say?
the movie itself,
in fact,
sells itself this way

and just think:
how boring would it
be to have some
same-old-same-old
conversation just about how
Deadpool is super well made
and impeccably cast,
even by Marvel standards?
how Ryan Reynolds nails it?
how the writing is
consistently hilarious
and refreshingly original?
how the action is
viscerally satisfying?
how the meta, fourth-wall-breaking
snarky tone – so easy to mess up –
is spot-on here?

super boring.
that won’t do.
what we’ll do is
focus on the rating.
spin it.
click bait it.

for the “Christian culture,”
however,
the issue isn’t the
focus on rating
so much as it is
the fact that
*you knew*
the rating
would be the focus

we’re used to the
Christian focus
on the rating,
and that’s the point

nevermind that –
if you care to look –
the web is full of
Christian takes
that focus on
redemptive elements
(like this or this),
what’s important
is that the
“Christian culture”
has taught us
to expect
rating-focused
takes like this or this

in other words,
the “typical Christian review”
of a movie like Deadpool
reflects what’s
(unfortunately)
seen as the
“typical Christian response:”
to focus on rating,
morality . .
on calling out and
counting up
and valuing according to
sins first

but here’s the thing:
should it be this way?

should the
“typical Christian response”
be to immediately
focus on sins?
to immediately
focus on the negative?

i submit that it should not

i submit that this
(unfortunately) typical,
“Christian”
knee-jerk reaction –
focusing on,
calling out,
counting up,
valuing by
sins first,
as opposed to
focusing on,
calling out,
counting up,
valuing first
by positive,
redemptive elements –
needs to change

to be sure,
as in the links above,
seeking for redemption
in dark, R-rated stories
currently gets done often
by Christians,
and has for years,
but the problem is
that it’s certainly
not what the
larger culture expects
from us . .
they expect
sin counting . .
a focus on the negative . .
and unfortunately
we often oblige

and sure,
sin counting
*does matter* . .
it’s important
to discuss the negatives
of a movie like Deadpool,
but not at the expense
of discussing positives . .
and again,
when it’s expected
of us to focus
on the negatives first,
there’s a problem

however,
as most are,
it’s a fixable problem

and,
as usual,
looking to Jesus is instructive

i notice, when dealing with
sinners like Deadpool,
Jesus seemed to like to say
things like:
“I do not condemn you, either.
Go. From now on sin no more.”

i notice that he offered water
before rebuking sin

i notice that both are present . .
the positive and the negative,
the redemption and the judgment . .

but i notice that one comes first

Filed Under: Editorial, Film, Reviews Tagged With: Christian, Deadpool, Jesus, Marvel, profanity, R-rated, religious, review, Ryan Reynolds, spiritual, violence

Primary Sidebar

THE SF NEWS

Get a special look, just for you.

sf podcast

Hot Off the Press

  • New Trailer for THIRTEEN LIVES gets Underground
  • GIVEAWAY! Advance Screening of PAWS OF FURY!
  • Rise: Another Disney Slam Dunk
  • The Long Rider: The Long Journey Inward
  • The Black Phone: Answering the Call to Fight Back
Find tickets and showtimes on Fandango.

where faith and film are intertwined

film and television carry stories which remind us of the stories God has woven since the beginning of time. come with us on a journey to see where faith and film are intertwined.

Footer

ScreenFish Articles

New Trailer for THIRTEEN LIVES gets Underground

GIVEAWAY! Advance Screening of PAWS OF FURY!

  • About ScreenFish
  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 · ScreenFish.net · Built by Aaron Lee

Posting....
 

Loading Comments...