Review: N.D. Wilson's NOTES FROM THE TILT-A-WHIRL (2009)

Rating: A+ -- Wilson's book breathed fresh creativity into my readings, which are usually brimmed with technical diction and thousands of annotations (See Richards; Broylandish 567 details the etymology of "see" in its Sumerian context). If you're looking for sensical quirk, read NOTES. For meticulous scholarship, find a different writer. Wilson reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson in a straitjacket and Annie Dillard on LSD, in other words, edgy, mind-altering Transcendentalism. I also sense the ghost of Chesterton on every page. Wilson has learned well from his father (Douglas Wilson), whose rhetorical skill is unmatched in current Christian apologetics and devotional writings (except by his son apparently). I could quote a million examples to give you a taste of NOTES, but I'll limit it to one:

Just to be clear, I live on a near perfect sphere hurtling through space at around 67,000 miles per hour. Mach 86 to pilots. Of course, this sphere of mine is also spinning while it hurtles, so tack on an extra 1,000 miles per hour at the fat parts. And it's all tucked into this giant hurricane of stars. Yes, it can be freaky. Once a month or so, my wife will find me lying in the lawn, burrowing white knuckles into the grass, trying not to fly away. But most of the time I manage to keep my balance despite the speed, and I don't have to hold on with anything more than my toes" (2)

THE ARGUMENT: No original ground covered here as far as content is concerned. Wilson argues that life is God's art and humans are his characters. Donald Miller did the same in BLUE LIKE JAZZ, and I imagine many before Miller felt that the analogy was appropriate. Wilson also emphasizes the mysteries of the natural world; at times I felt that he OVER-emphasized these mysteries. He immediately dismisses all mythology and philosophy as "other" and misguided, except for his own of course. He nicely covers the problem of evil (beautiful analogy using ants, earwigs, and a writer who needs to cut his grass) and atheism. Through clever use of analogies and natural phenomena, Wilson concludes that the God of the Bible is real and true. Although parts of the book are mental, most of the book is SENTImental. It's funny and FEELS true. I'd read it again, and I'd recommend it to anyone who ponders philosophical and religious truths, regardless of your persuasion or lack thereof. I would describe reading this book just as N.D. Wilson (in his essay "Father Brown Fakes the Shroud") described reading Chesterton: "Reading him is more like eating sausage and drinking thick beer at a circus than it is like reading philosophy of religion" (3).

Review and Analysis: Edward Zwick's DEFIANCE (2008)

Rating: B+ -- The setting of the film impressed me. Zwick and company filmed in Lithuania, only one country away from Belarus, the original place where the Bielski Partisans established their wooded "sanctuary." The film takes place in the same forest system, for Lithuania and Belarus neighbor one another. Zwick said in one of the Special Features documentaries that Belarus is one of the few remaining countries led by a dictator, so that's why he chose Lithuania. But the acting was superb. SPOILER SENTENCE: The "deus ex machina" ending seemed abrupt. Of course, after over two hours watching, I shouldn't really expect Zwick to spend too much more time following the Partisans.

Analysis of Film's Argument: DEFIANCE explores the "are we men or monsters?" theme, attempting to categorize violence in terms of its motives: racism, vengeance, and protection. One brother, Tuvia (Daniel Craig), represents the "men" while the other brother, Zus (Liev Schreiber), represents the "monster." Zus seems to think that his brother Tuvia is a wuss, so Zus leaves the "men" to enact his "monstrous" vengeance against the Germans. He joins the Russian army, but is soon disillusioned by their insensitivity and racism, leading him back to protect the community. Perhaps Zwick is arguing that violence does not create monsters, the motivation behind the violence creates the monster. If blood is shed in the name of racism, one is a monster. That's a given. If blood is shed in the name of vengeance, one is a monster. This one's more difficult to swallow. Tuvia avenges his family but feels guilty. The Partisans avenge their families (by smashing the piss out of a captured Nazi) while Tuzia watches; his reaction to this mutilation suggests that the Partisans' actions are monstrous. But the moral dilemma here is interesting, and leads to the final argument: if blood is shed in the name of protection, one is NOT a monster. If the Partisans free the captured Nazi, he will reveal their location. So the Nazi's death seems to represent bloodshed in the names of both vengeance AND protection. Zus's return seems to reinforce this argument and represent his metamorphosis from monster to man. As usual, a few more viewings would better inform this post, but at least you and I have an idea to carry with us into our next viewing.

Life Beyond the Pages?

Jess and I were sitting on the porch Monday night, enjoying a glass of red wine (kind of like Stanley from THE OFFICE) and puffing on an expensive cigar (We even buy cigars at garage sales! I have about 50 of them right now! All costing only $10!). I think we were discussing Victorian horror literature as an expression of societal guilt and fears associated with British colonialism (e.g. Boothby's PHAROS, Kipling's "Mark", Marsh's BEETLE, Wells's WAR OF THE WORLDS). I then rambled on about modern societal fears and these fears' expression in contemporary horror films (e.g. Wan's SAW, Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS, Shyamalan's HAPPENING). Of course, I think I ended up expressing a bunch of baseless criticisms about American society. That's when Jess made me belly laugh. She told me what she plans to engrave on my tombstone. I found a Tombstone Generator online and used the limited characters it would allow to preserve my legacy in pixeled granite.She's right. Maybe one day I will actually experience life beyond the pages.

Review and Analysis: Goran Dukic's WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY (2006)

Rating: B+ -- WRISTCUTTERS was philosophically thought-provoking, that's why I liked it. I'm not sure if the film makes complete sense yet. I want to watch it again and plug in some ideas, especially during the last thirty minutes where Will Arnett appears as Messiah King. I also enjoyed the music in the film (e.g. Tom Waits, Joy Division), especially the film's theme song: "Through the Roof" by Gogol Bordello.

SPOILERS FOLLOW (Argument and Analysis): The film is set in an afterlife designed for suicide victims, which according to the film, everything in this afterlife is just a "little shittier" than the former life. Suicide happens when one no longer finds a meaning to his/her existence. The film seems to argue that this meaning to life, or whatever it is that fulfills a person's longing for meaning in his/her own life, can only be found when finding this meaning no longer matters to the person. It is then that he/she finds meaning. Zia, the protagonist (Patrick Fugit), searches for his true love and ends up falling for a girl (Shannyn Sossamon as Mikal) he meets as he searches for his ex-girlfriend (She's the reason he slits his wrists and ends up in the desolate afterlife.). Mikal spends her time trying to find the People in Charge (These people represent God) because she feels she has been unfairly placed here, for she OD'd; she didn't intentionally kill herself. And another character, Eugene the Russian (Shea Whigham), has nothing better to do, so he joins Zia in his journey to find his ex-girlfriend.

SPOILERS CONTINUE: It seems fitting that Eugene is the first to find meaning, for finding meaning never really mattered to him (He had nothing better to do, right?). He ends up falling in love with a woman, which, as I may have mentioned before on this blog, is representative of conventional film philosophy (which is reflective of conventional human philosophy): finding true human love is the meaning to life. Zia does the same, and Mikal DOES find the People in Charge, suggesting that God DOES exist. But these are my conclusions after one viewing. My desire to RE-watch this one is reason enough for you to simply watch it for the first time.

Review: John Steinbeck's THE GRAPES OF WRATH

Another 11th grade Summer Reading book finished. Since my school emphasizes student choice (within reasonable confines) and I feel obligated to read books before testing my students on those books, I have four Summer Reading books left to read before May 2010. Other teachers chose the first two (Ernest Gaines's A LESSON BEFORE DYING and GRAPES). The next four are books of my own choosing: Eric Schlosser's FAST FOOD NATION, Kurt Vonnegut's SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE, Flannery O'Connor's WISEBLOOD, and Alice Walker's THE COLOR PURPLE. When I finish I'll restart the cycle (unless I choose all the books ... then I'll choose the same books ... I want to read what I want to read for a change, and I want to read HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE, which is not an American work).

GRAPES is Steinbeck: Great characters that make intimate and emotional attachment an easy task. Enough biblical allusions to trace to keep you busy for awhile. And the inescapable moral dilemmas fleshed out using the conventions of literary Regionalism. Steinbeck also reflects the Modernist narrative technique. Every few chapters is a poetic inter-chapter written in biblical style. Very amazing writing on display here. I recommend that you read one of these inter-chapters as a taste of Steinbeck's sour wine, to see if you want to ride down Route 66 with the Joads to California.

This is my third Steinbeck novel (1st was THE PEARL; 2nd was OF MICE AND MEN). I will more than likely keep going. I hope to read EAST OF EDEN and WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT next.

Thoughts on Tool's "Intolerance": Hypocrisy and the Contemporary Church

I've been deeply involved with conservative church life for a decade. If you read this blog, you already know that, and quite frankly, you're tired of hearing about it. I think I can speak on church life (I still like the term Christendom) with some authority. Based on my experience with Christians, I truly think that they are somewhat misrepresented by non-Christians, specifically on the television and in the lyrics of those God-forsaken rock n' roll songs.

I'm thinking on this because of Tool's "Intolerance" (first track on UNDERTOW). Maynard slaps around the Southern Baptist church (he was raised in this tradition) for 5:00 (1). Maynard seems frustrated with the hypocrisy of the church. He writes of its "veil of virtue" hung to hide its "method," which becomes a "shroud of virtue" that hides its "stigma." It's hard to tell whether he's saying that the church HAS a stigma or the church PLACES a stigma on others. Since the "method" mentioned a few lines prior refers to the ACTIONS of the church, I'll assume the same for "stigma," and claim that Maynard argues that the church pretends to practice virtue but methodically stigmatizes others. But, you know, "stigma" also refers to a stain or wound and closely resembles the world "stigmata," a wound that resembles the wounds of Christ. This strategic word is fitting, for it connotes three similar but different ideas.

Maynard continues, "I am not innocent. / You are not innocent. / No one is innocent," suggesting to me that he is countering the church's claims of self-innocence as they "lie, cheat, and steal." Maynard vows to no longer tolerate this hypocrisy, regardless of the consequences he might face ("Even if I must go down beside you"). Maynard's church experience differs from my experience with the church. Who knows what factors cause us to differ, but I'll explain why I feel the way I do.

Does the conservative church stigmatize? Yes. In my experience the church stigmatizes homosexuals, political liberals, and theological liberals. I'm confident that they stigmatize liberals. I've been in and overheard too many conversations to claim otherwise. As for homosexuals, I'm not as confident. Maybe I'm repeating the voices of the liberal branches of popular media. I only hear Christians talk of gays when discussing marriage legislation. Tones of disgust abound, and although many Christians will lump homosexuality in with all the others sins and try to make comparisons to genetic and environmental tendencies toward the others sins (like alcoholism and porn addiction), I hear a bit of a stigmatic tone.

Does the conservative church wear a veil or shroud of virtue? No. Maybe the political figures who parade God's name. But Machiavellian political figures shouldn't represent Christendom. And even if I counted them as the norm, I would argue that those truly Christian politicians who fall from grace in the public's eye only appear MORE evil because of the perception they've worked so hard to create, a perception that politicians NEED in order to win votes. They lift themselves up (and they have good reasons to do this) only to succumb to a sinful reality that they probably only talk about with their closest friends.

The same goes for pastors and preachers. These guys are in charge of the spiritual well-being of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. They must maintain a public perception, and this maintenance does not require them to lie or mislead. It requires them to NOT discuss the details of their sins with very many others. Preachers and pastors need accountability relationships built on confidentiality. The majority of people are stupid, and perception drives their hinge-less opinions. The public (including these pastors' own congregations) need only know the generalizations of their pastors' sins (i.e. "I am a sinful worm"); they can't handle the particulars. The naive public would never understand, especially with guys like Maynard reinforcing stereotypes derived from his personal church experience.

Christians are usually the first to confess their frequent sin habits. Get to know one a little. I promise that they'll make it clear to you that they are both sinner AND saint, and their sainthood is 100% credited to Christ's imputed righteousness. Christians recognize an experiential change from a dead conscience to a living conscience and a new awareness and reduction of past sins, and they battle for purity and sanctification in a world that understands them not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wiederhorn, Jon. "Album by Album: UNDERTOW." Revolver Magazine's BOOK OF TOOL. 2009.

Review: Regardt van den Bergh's FAITH LIKE POTATOES

Rating: B+ -- This South African film was released three years ago, receiving critical acclaim overseas. It finally made its way into my bedroom. The title of this film sounds silly. I would have named it something else. But the film is good. The acting is above average. Now the plot has a few holes (probably due to editing) but nothing major. And keep in mind that sometimes plot holes reflect the pot holes in my inattentive brain, meaning that I may have blanked out during the introduction of new info. The film is based on a true story. I watched the documentary about Angus Buchan (in the DVD Special Features). He claims God did what the film depicts God doing. I wish God would raise the dead and grow potatoes here in America. Why does Africa get all the good miracles? (Don't bother answering this one. I've heard the answer a thousand times.) One more thing I got from this film: the men in the film use the S. African word "boet" when talking to one another, sort of like Americans use the term "man" or "dude" or "bro." Jess and I have enjoyed calling each other "boets" for the past few days. "Would you pass me the salt, boet?" "Good morning, boet!" I think this DVD is worth your time, boets. Enjoy.