Don’t Burn Me at the Stake

Brace yourself.  I loved Angels and Demons.

It was fast-paced, artistic, and thrilling.  The acting was excellent and the cinematography outstanding.  This was one of the best films I’ve seen in a long, long time.  It was like The Bourne Identity, Indiana Jones, and National Treasure married and had a sweet kid.

A lot of Christians have had knee-jerk reactions to this film, as if it is a open assault on everything Jesus stands for.

If you are one of those Christians, go see the movie.  That wasn’t the case.  I was on the edge of my seat.  You won’t be disappointed.  I guarantee it.

I’m not going to comment on The DaVinci Code (which I haven’t seen) or on the corresponding novels by Dan Brown.  I haven’t read any book by Brown — mostly because if I’m going to read, it’s going to be nonfiction, because if it’s fiction, I’d rather go to a theater and be done with it in two hours.

I’ve heard that Brown’s books can tend to be somewhat polemical toward Christianity, with a favorable disposition toward science and humanism, but I didn’t find that in Angels in Demons. I saw a lot of stuff (too much to remember, actually) that was quite interesting.  Here’s a few reflections:

• Ron Howard used the color red better than any movie I have seen since since The Sixth Sense.  The use of reds — burgundy, maroon, blood red, flame red — was nothing short of genius.  It really set a tone and tempo for the movie and made is aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
• The camera angles (not angels!) and recurring symbols (like statues of angels and demons, the color red, fire, water, light, crosses, steel brands) played so well into enhancing the theme of the mystery of Catholic and Illuminati relations.  The symbols drove the plot, and kept me guessing as to what the climax would be — and when it would occur.
• I give props to the Catholics because their architecture blows away all other types of architecture.  The movie made me want to visit Rome more than I already want to.
• I paid close attention to this throughout, but according to my memory there was not one negative comment in the movie made toward the Bible or Jesus (which, as I’m told, is not the case in the novels).  The movie was not so much “anti-Christian” as it was “anti-Catholic.”  Remember, this is not always the same.  The movie painted Catholics (not the laymen, but the priests and Cardinals) as being corrupt and untruthful.  Yet there was a compassionate aspect toward Catholics as it brutally portrayed the Cardinals’ persecution.  I don’t think anyone would be able to not hate the main antagonist character throughout the film. The movie also showed academics and scientists as people who genuinely cared for and loved religious people, even being seekers of the divine themselves, despite epistemological differences.
• Tom Hanks’ character, Robert Langdon, is portrayed as a cerebral academic from Harvard who has a passive vendetta against the Catholic church because of its behavior toward the Illuminati. Nevertheless, what I saw in Langdon was a continual softening toward religion as the film progressed.  At one point, when asked if he believed in God, he said, “I’m an academic…Faith is a gift that I haven’t received yet.”  (I jokingly commented that he is an unconvinced, unconverted Calvinist!)  At the end of the movie, a Cardinal said something to the effect of, “We are thankful God sent you to help us.”  Langdon responded, “I don’t believe God sent me.”  The Cardinal quipped, “Of course he did,” which left Langdon with a sincere look of question on his face, as if to say, “Maybe he did.”  Furthermore, during an interaction with Vittoria, the female researcher, and the Swiss Guard about the “God particle”, Langdon made a comment similar to, “You are talking about discovering the very origins of the universe?”  Though the Bible teaches, and I affirm, that God created the earth, and there is no “God particle,” it shows that Langdon wrestles with this idea of the universe coming from nothing and at least shows interest, though misplaced, in figuring out how it started.
• This movie, in general, made me rejoice for men like Martin Luther and John Calvin who helped usher in the Reformation, by God’s grace.  I’ll just say it: I’m glad I’m Protestant and Evangelical.
• The movie had major themes of man’s depravity and redemption.  It’s a classic battle of good and evil. Tom Hanks’ role is a savior-type.  There is a devil (I won’t tell you who).  There are people who need to get saved.  There is evil redemption, that is, revenge.  There are wicked attempts at atonement for past sins.  There are professions of total depravity by the Catholic Cardinals.
• There was not one sex scene or innuendo.  I heard but a few foul words, but nothing to be concerned about.  I commend Ron Howard for making a movie that sells without using the usual garbage-like sales pitches.

I could keep going, but I’ll stop.  The bottom line is this: Angels and Demons has no more false ideas about God and religion than Indiana Jones, City Slickers, or Win a Date with Tad Hamilton.  If you are a Jesus-loving Christian, there will be parts that make you shake your head and say, “No.  That’s wrong,” but I’ve done that just as often while watching a romantic-comedy and being disgusted at the false reality of how relationships work. 

Every movie is a fictional depiction of someone’s reality.  Every movie exalts something as a god.  Every movie has a savior, a devil, a deep problem, and a redemptive solution.  Every movie calls you to make a decision about what you will worship once you leave the theater.

Long Drive Home, So I’ll Relax With Some More Re-Cuts

I just spent three hours driving home from Johannesburg. It’s only 38 miles, but there were a few accidents on the interstate, and as always, thousands of cars. Just imagine commuting from L.A. to San Diego. It’s really that bad.

So I’m watching some more re-cut trailers on YouTube to wind down.  Here was the best one:

Uncle Buck:

Re-Cut Movie Trailers

A very big thank you to my sister Amy for these videos.  If you haven’t seen the movies, you might not think they are funny, but hopefully you’ll catch the humor.

As I watched, I couldn’t help but think about how these re-cut trailers show the serious power that music has on our mental perception of images.  How else can Jack Torrance turn into Clark Griswold so easily?

Happy viewing!

. . .

The Ring becomes tear-jerker of the year:

Sleepless in Seattle is now a psychological drama (much like Fatal Attraction):

Mary Poppins turns into the horror film Scary Mary:

The Shining turns into family-friendly Shining:

Theology in Batman

Anyone who knows me well knows that I am a huge Batman fan.  Listen to this message by James Harleman from Mars Hill, in Seattle, on the theology of Batman Begins.  Perhaps when The Dark Knight comes out on DVD, I’ll be able to walk through some of my theological thoughts on that film.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Review

Last night I saw Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary starring Ben Stein as narrator and interviewer. I didn’t have a notebook in the theater with me to take notes, so I don’t remember exact quotes or names, but I would like to share some thoughts.

First of all, I thought the movie was well done. It didn’t have the typical documentary feel. It was good art and well filmed. The whole production was edgy, culturally relative, and in-your-face. I liked that. Also, it was plain funny at times, showing clips from black and white movies that related to the particular subject being discussed at any one time. I didn’t feel like I was watching the History Channel or NOVA. Darwinists will probably object to this and say, “It takes away from Stein’s credibility” because it may have seemed “childish” or “unprofessional.” I think it simply shows that Stein is a human who has a pulse and a sense of humor. If Darwinists take themselves that seriously, then I would suggest that they need to stop doing so much research and take in a stand-up act sometime soon. Perhaps a “joke of the day” email would help, too. Life’s too short to take yourself that seriously.

As far as the content of the film is concerned, it was informative to me. Of course, I am an advocate of Intelligent Design, from a Christian perspective, that God created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh. (If I’m delusional for believing that, then I guess I’ll be delusional because for someone to look me in the eye and tell me that the cricket I stepped on yesterday and myself originally, all the way back in time, came from the same single-celled organism is simply nonsense.) The stories of the professors and researchers who were expelled or fired from their jobs because of their belief in ID were at times touching and I certainly empathized with them. What was so amazing about this film however were the interviews with the Darwinist atheists. When Stein interviewed Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, at length, toward the end of the film, I made a few mental notes. This was the more significant portions of the film.

• Dawkins is an evil, demonic, pagan man. Dawkins expressed so much contempt and hatred toward “religious people” and God, my soul was writhing in sadness for and righteous anger toward this man. He said, “Every person who believes in God is ignorant” (my paraphrase). Read this quote from his book, which he quoted in the film:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

• Stein questioned Dawkins on the origin of the universe. Darwinian evolution only explains how species evolved, not how the universe began. For the most part, Dawkins was befuddled and looked like an unintelligent scientist himself. Dawkins said, “We don’t know” (exact quote) at least two times when asked about the origin of the universe. Stein said, “Could it be God?” Dawkins said he cannot disprove God, but he cannot prove him either. Stein asked Dawkins to put a percentage on it and Dawkins responded with “Ninety-nine percent sure.” Stein quipped back, “Why not 97%? What about 49%?” Dawkins said he is “uncomfortable putting a number on it.” Then, he made the comment that he believes God doesn’t exist because “people experience freedom when they leave religion or [don't believe in] God.” How does he know this? He told Stein, “I’ve gotten letters from people” telling about their new-found freedom in atheism. Stein quickly responded, “Dr. Dawkins, there are 8 billion people in the world, how many letters have you gotten?” Dawkins, noticeably embarrassed, said, “Well, yes, you are right,” implying that his statement was ridiculous and unwarranted. At the end of this exchange, Dawkins admitted there is a possibility that there might be an Intelligent Creator who created other intelligent life (as in ‘aliens’) and, by some random chance, “life was planted” here on earth. Stein then said, “Even Richard Dawkins said that intelligent design might be possible.”

Aside, another scientist gave his belief on the beginning of the universe: “It probably started on the back of crystals.” He didn’t explain this and I don’t know what that means. I don’t think he knows what it means either.

In other interviews with atheist scientists, I noticed their contempt and hatred for “religious people” and “ID scientists.” Never once however, was their any disdain expressed toward Darwinian scientists. (This aspect could have been slanted, I know, but it didn’t appear as such to me.) In fact, one scientist was read a quote by himself, in which he said ID proponents were “idiots” and “stupid people.” He was taken off-guard by this and quite embraced. Another scientist shouted when he said that he could imagine “nothing more boring than a Creator creating the universe.” What was more disturbing was that he said there is no purpose in life and that when you die “you die and there is nothing left.” In fact, he said that a few years ago he had a brain tumor and if it were to return, “which it most likely will,” he would not want to turn out like his brother (or brother-in-law, can’t remember) who struggled through ALS and would rather “shoot myself in the head long before I get to that point.” Stein said that he hoped he was not serious about that claim because shortly after that interview his tumor had returned. I suppose that Dawkins and the other scientists need a bit more lovin’ and a little less research. There was so much anger in their hearts that I’m also betting they were probably not hugged by their parents when they were younger.

There was a connection made between the Nazi Germany genocide of the Jews during the Holocaust to Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest and eugenics. In short, Hitler used Darwin’s theories as a template for cleansing the impure races. The “survival of the fittest” was the choice doctrine of Hitler and his Third Reich. Stein walked through the killing chambers from the Holocaust with a tour guide and he asked her, “Don’t you think that the doctors were the insane ones and not the people on the tables?” Then, he asked: “What would you say to [the Nazi doctor] if you saw him today?” Certainly the weight of that question was heavy on her heart as she began to tear up. “I don’t think it’s my place to say anything,” she replied.

So, I’ll admit, this review is one-sided. I could spend hours writing more (and I probably will after I buy it on DVD) but alas, I have a job and a life so I can’t blog all day. Aside from that, of course this one-sided is because the Bible is the truth. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Did Darwin ever say that? Can Dawkins say that? Has science anywhere, ever said that? Atheistic scientists have “statistics” and “percentages” and “probabilities.” Jesus has the substance. He has the truth. There is true freedom in Jesus.

Dawkins was right about one thing: When people leave religion they find true freedom. Dawkins is still in religion — the religion of evolution and the doctrine of Darwin. Dawkins is more “religious” than I am. He is utterly, religiously committed to believing that God is not real. The old saying is true: It takes more faith to not believe in God than it does to believe in him. He is making it his life’s goal to convince others of that as well. When people leave their religious ways of living, and come to Jesus, they have never been more free. I pray that Dawkins will experience that someday.

One thing I don’t understand. Here’s my question; if you’d like to give two cents, go ahead.

If atheists believe that life has no purpose and we just live for 70 years and die, and Christians believe that life has purpose and there are two options for the afterlife (heaven or hell), but both groups in the world’s eye have the same goal — namely to try to do good and enhance mankind’s well-being — then why do atheists care what we teach or believe? If truth was really relative (like they say it is), wouldn’t atheists get their lot (becoming earth soil) and Christians get theirs (eternal life with Jesus)?

Personally, I think Christians get the better deal.