"The Twilight Saga: New Moon"

Typically when I write about films, I try and do it from the perspective of what can we take that might be personally enriching. In the case of Twilight, this is me writing and having fun. Please excuse my diversion for a moment...

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is about a 104 year old pedophile who falls for a 17 year old personality-less emo girl. In this fascinating installment, children with supernatural powers turn into wolfs, speak in tongues, and walk around shirtless. They also have super awesome long hair, fix motorcycles, and find even more reasons to not wear shirts. It’s awesome. The reason all of this on screen trickery occurs is because of head scratching codes and a love story for the ages.

Particularly, the ages of 12-15 years old.

To say that I did not resonate with “New Moon” would be the same as saying bananas do not resonate with hot mustard. The movie is two solid hours long and painfully slow. There are about 3 action sequences that divert from the chatter, but that’s about it. It is a very talkative movie that says absolutely nothing at all. One particular scene where Bella (the love interest, played by a wooden Kristen Stewart) and her maybe/possibly lover Jacob (some guy with a fantastic hairdo) talk in her bedroom goes something like this:

“I can’t do this”

“You’re saying no?”

“That’s right…no”

“So…you are saying no. I don’t know”

“But it must be…no”

I am paraphrasing here, but not by much. The line delivery is so stilted and overly serious, I thought George Lucas stepped behind the camera and yelled at the actors by saying “Be serious guys! Let me see serious” just like in the second Star Wars movie where Natalie Portman and Haden Christensen hilariously talk about Natalie’s sandpaper skin. It’s hard to know if it is terrible direction, or terrible acting, which is a bummer because the film is directed by the guy who made “About A Boy,” a personal favorite of mine.

While others around the globe have fallen in love with the story, I don’t get what makes the story so good (at least in this film version). The vampire and werewolf mythologies are tiny footnotes that could otherwise make this fun. The leads are uninteresting in spite of their supernatural hot sauce, and Bella has virtually no likeable qualities.

Logic also has to arrive at the front door of your mind at some point as well – Why is it that a 104 year old remains in high school? He could always maintain his secrecy by going to college if he were really that bored…And why in the hell is he picking up on teenagers? Doesn’t that kind of disturb anybody, at least comically? You know, the fact that the guy is 104 and he is picking up on 17 year olds? And if you have lived on the planet for 104 years and met Bella in all her drama, wouldn’t that be more of a turn off as opposed to a life long romance?

The movie becomes distractingly bad when we observe the cast. 5 years from now, this movie will be irrelevant and it is ripe for SNL and South Park parodies. All of the music and style is so self consciously hip, it grates the pace along. The vampire females all went to the Vidal Sassoon academy for a haircut before they appeared on screen. They wear today’s brilliant fashions and look like they all just jumped out of the latest Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue. Sequences of slow motion running are littered throughout the movie. In one particularly scene it is hilarious – it comes at the end where Edward and Bella blissfully run through the woods like they are in a love story parody. Or Shrek. The theater I was in laughed out loud.

While “New Moon” does have a soundtrack filled with today’s indie pop heroes, it sort of shows just how commercialized the music has become. I have long noticed that the lyrics of the so called counter-culture indy bands are whining children sad about girls and relationships, but this movie just highlights it, and painfully at that. The lyrics and dialogue are so loathing and adolescent, it’s as though the script were written as a project in my high school drama class.

But…

I know that I am not the target demographic for this film. I doubt anyone was trying to make a great piece of art that places alongside Bergman, Hitchcock, or Fellini. For those who read the books, I salute thee and hope that you enjoyed the film for bringing the story to visual life. There is nothing wrong with liking what you like. In this case you probably just have bad taste.

But hey, I also used to adore The Monkees TV show as a kid.

In the end, this is what we call a booty cash call. It was not made for any other reason than to make money, which is why it gets the hottest tween actors and actresses, hip music, and shirtless tomfoolery. I know the films intentions, and I don’t fault it for that. But for any other reason, this is a big pile of crap waiting for your money. And with two more installments on the way, you and I know that it will get it over and over again.

"Anvil! The Story of Anvil"

Is there a point when it’s time to change your plans? You know, something just isn’t working right that you have been working on for so long? How about a business you started that just isn’t taking off? What about an acting career that has nothinged out, which led to you faking a stunt about putting your kids up in a balloon to get on TV?

Well, if the band “Anvil” is any indication, you should never quit pursuing your passion.

“Anvil” is a Candian metal band that has/had a legitimate talent. They were known back in the early 80’s as a new type of metal that brought the “heavy” into the mix. They shared the stage and influenced the likes of Slayer, Twisted Sister, Metallica, and Guns N Roses. And while all those bands went on to brainwash your children, “Anvil” was never let out of its cage to bang its head all over your stereo. No label picked them up, no band they inspired took them on tour. Many years, albums, and dwindling shows later, “Anvil” was finding itself to be a has been comprised of 4 old men who never graduated from Metal University.

So what happened? Where did they go? Should you and I care? The documentary “Anvil! The Story of Anvil” answers all these questions. It picks up in modern day where the guys get hooked up to go on an international tour. Some of the shows are genuinely great, as they share festival stages with other well known metal bands. Some of them are miserable, as we painfully share in the genuine heartbreak these guys go through. It is here where the Spinal Tap references are more than applicable.

Speaking of guys, while bass and lead guitar have been a rotating play list for “Anvil,” drummer Robb Reiner and lead singer Steve “Lips” Kudlow have been faithful and true back to where it all started in the earliest of the 1980’s. They are the kind of best friends who might as well be related. They fight and spit like brothers, and they would die for one another like brothers. It gives the movie a heart and soul that other films of its nature just don’t have. They are the reason you will end up caring, even if you hate the music.

But, as much as I cared about the guys and their never ending passion, it begs the question – When do you stop?

While watching the film, I couldn’t help but wonder. Lips and Reiner’s passion for their music and friendship is so strong, that “Anvil” is the marriage and the wives are the mistress. They work low end jobs to pay the bills. Each man has given up everything for the dream of being a full time touring musician. Even though the ship left the port when Nirvana docked in the 90’s, they still tightly held on to the dream.

Regardless, I absolutely loved this documentary because I know what it feels like to want to play music so badly that you would give up everything to do it. Ask anyone who plays music: If someone today were to present you with the opportunity play music for a living, would you drop everything and do it? The answer is “yes.” When you are fulfilling your passion, you feel a type of happy that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Nothing compares to it. This is the sort of thing where no matter if 10 or 1000 people show up, you still play with the same energy because you love the sound. You feel that feeling, and you get high on it. It is a beautiful thing to know your passion, and to relish in it. Playing music for these guys has never been a job they had to do. For them, it's why they breathe.

Since the film came out, “Anvil” has been getting more and more recognition. But I think that it may not be for the reasons they had hoped for. It is their story of the years and years of never giving up that makes me root for them, not their music. It is a double edged sword of recognition, but also novelty. Old school metalheads either knew about the band and forgot, or they have always cared. These are the ones “Anvil” will affect the most. But the rest of us probably wouldn’t go out and buy the soundtrack.

“Anvil” is a weird sort of gambling addiction for the guys. They go to the tables and play their cards, only to sometimes win. That type of positive reinforcement is called addiction. They tasted something once and have been trying to find it again ever since. However, I know of more than a few folks who are paying off recording debts in their parent’s basements while pimping out their myspace music page. You get stuck, and like an addiction it can ruin your life. You believe that someday something will happen. You’ll get that experience again, or that feeling will come back. Why go to school and get a degree if the band might take off? Why risk not playing a show? You have to wonder how far you go to hang onto the dream before moving on.

As a whole, I have a really mixed reaction. I can’t help but be happy that since the film released, they have only gotten more recognition due to the timely “don’t give up” message. It’s true, don’t give up on your passion. But the other side of me says sometimes, it’s best to know when to quit, or at least change your plans. I am grateful that in the case of “Anvil,” they stuck it out till the end.

You will be too.

Zombieland

Around elementary school age, I used to love playing with action figures. I used to spend hours pretending I would be the lone ninja GI Joe superhero spy who would come into the fray of soldiers, ninja turtles, and miscellaneous robots to save the day. I imagined being one man versus 1000, and the enemy never stood a chance. That’s because I am awesome, and my soldier could withstand any bad guy ninja in the pack.

Yep, unstoppably awesome.

My imagination about saving the day has always caught up with me at each stage of development. As a teenager, it was me pretending to walk down the hallway and ask out my dream girl, who secretly was in love with me. You see, unbeknownst to me, she had been admiring my awesome haircut, hardcore music related t-shirt, and my sense of humor. When I was on stage with my band, it wasn’t the reality of the crowd watching, it was the hope of that one person watching me.

In fantasy and imagination, no one stops you except for yourself. You can only imagine things that you understand. Often, these fantasies come from a place of wanting something you aren’t. Perhaps it was that in playing with my action figures as the lone wolf soldier, I was enjoying pretending to be invincible and in control. However, in reality I was a really anxious and socially nervous kid who dealt with a fair amount of being made fun of by my peers. Playing was way to feel cool, comfortable, and in control of my environment. Imagination and fantasy are why play therapy works so well with children, because children project onto the playing what is going on in their uncensored minds.

“Zombieland” is the ultimate in male escapist fantasy. It opens with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg from “The Squid and the Whale”) giving an overview of four simple rules to survive the world, or as the world is now known, “Zombieland.” As Columbus narrates, we see limbs flying, tendons being chewed on, flesh gushing, and all manner of zombie style gore - much of which is played for humor as opposed to terror.

Very quickly, Columbus meets Tallahassee (all characters go by the name of their home town) and off they go en route to their various destinations. While en route, the run into Little Rock and Wichita, two sister’s who are headed to a California amusement park. Columbus is immediately smitten with Wichita, and the chase is on for love…and freedom from zombies.

The story is told through the eyes of Columbus. He is your everyday lovable nerd who loves his World of Warcraft and Code Red Mountain Dew. He lacks social skills, particularly with females. The movie watches him try to be the hero in the midst of an ultimate tough guy, tiny teen, and gorgeous gal. The movie is about him, through him and by him.

It is his fantasy.

In fact “Zombieland” is every male geek’s fantasy. You know, the guy who obsessively plays videogames, is socially awkward, and has an insanely deep knowledge of all things safe (hence the rules in the film)? This is the guy who has his fun imagining slaying dragons, fighting on battlefields, and yes – saving the world. He imagines being cool while retaining his geek sense of self and makes friends with other cool people. Most importantly, he imagines getting the girl. At the end of it all, if the whole world was decaying and dying – he would survive it, show incredible courage, save the world, and get the girl.

It’s the little things that matter in life.

“Zombieland” is this male fantasy. I get the impression that the writer was making his autobiography of the future, only told through the lens of the past as his teen self. One could even argue that the character of Tallahassee is a projection of his inner fearless self. Consider that the tagline in “Zombieland” is “It’s time to nut up or shut up.” So what are the ladies supposed to do (because you know, women don’t have nuts)? In the film the women are clever con artists, but even at the end, they are transformed into damsels in distress and it’s up to Mr. Geek to save them and get his kiss of a reward. It is what every pimply faced teen dreams of accomplishing.

And yet, I really enjoyed “Zombieland.” I connected with it as a fun escapist movie that features plenty of jump scares, humor, action, and gore. It connected with the geeky male in me (there is plenty of it too). I liked the story, which had some real dynamic, emotional depth and character development in the most unlikely of places. I thought that Woody Harrelson was cast before the movie was actually written because he so embodies Tallahassee. The film had great one-liners, and the lines were delivered by actors who were fun to watch and listen to.

As a film, I have a couple criticisms. Some things are convenient, like how the protagonists first meet. Additionally there are some pacing issues. It starts off fast and loud, winds down and then ends somewhere in the middle. It wasn’t the finale it should have been. I would love to have seen some big explosions to close it out. Additionally, the rules idea was clever and set up well, but not carried through as consistently as could have been. Still, it was easy to forgive in a movie that was as much about giving you some scares and lots of laughs as it was about telling a story.

I read somewhere that “Zombieland” was America’s response to the completely awesome British film “Shaun of the Dead.” In many ways it is, though this film feels more polished – for better and for worse. I ultimately liked “Shaun” more, but that is not meant to be a knock to “Zombieland.” They both are really fun, entertaining movies that aim to do just that – entertain. It will connect with something in male’s more, but everyone will laugh at least once.

3.5/5

It Might Get Loud

How are you creative?

I am a musician, and have played mostly guitar and drums for over 17 years. I remember my first guitar - it was a red Hohner stratocaster copycat. I got it during Christmas one year, and I remember when I first saw it in the garage after all the other gifts had been opened. My Dad led me to it through a false story about spilling coffee and needing some carpet cleaner. The first time I looked, I didn't even see it. But the second time, I did see it, and thanks to guys like Beau Bivins and my Dad, I was playing metal with power chords as often as I possibly could.

Any of us who likes partaking in creative endeavors can remember when we started and how it felt. That first time we made up our own song, played it with strangers who become our new best friends, and then showed it to others awaiting their response was unforgettable. The feeling of playing music you create, love, and share with others is like giving a friend a present. You are nervous about what they will think as they unwrap the box. Only, when you create something you are that much more nervous of the person's reception - what will they think of the colors you chose? What will they think of the sound it makes, or the way it looks? It's a fantastic feeling when it is received well and even better when asked for more.

"It Might Get Loud" serves as an example of the creative process through three men's legacies that have been shaped by the guitar. Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge get together to discuss the way the guitar has impacted their lives. We see and hear early video of the stories of U2, Led Zepplin, and Jack White's music, to sometimes comedic effect. However, this is not a documentary about bands, it is a documentary about creative persons. You see just how these guys approached the same instrument from different views and thus created something uniquely special where no two sound the same. The film explain's how each person developed or found their iconic instrument (The Edge's classic sunburst guitar, Jack White's unique take on pick ups, Jimmy Page's two neck guitar), and ultimately reminds us just how diverse and subjective music (or art in general) actually is.

The movie does not aim to create something with these three musicians. In fact, the end result of their conversation is a cover song, perhaps appropriately so. But there won't be any superstar band or "project" as a result of the meeting. I liked that. It kept the focus on the process of playing, discovering and creating. It took the focus off of content. These three men have made a career, traveled the world, and had emotional impacts on people across the planet from the same device: the guitar.

The thing is, it doesn't appear that being famous is what anyone was necessarily striving for - a refreshing change of pace in a reality tv world. The three men share a rabid love of playing and experiencing music. We go into their homes and see what vinyls they have, what their favorite songs are, and where other musicians have inspired each of them. It is fantastic. It is less rock star, and more giddy child interacting with music enthusiast. It made me feel like I was just hanging out with the guys. To make it even more amazing, the film revisits the homes or places where one of each musicians classic works were created.

The movie nicely covers a diversity in approach to the guitar. Each player has a specific philosophy about the art. Two ends of the musical spectrum candidly reveal themselves: to be aided by technology or to rebel against it. There are those who love the aid of digital manipulation, and those who refuse to participate in anything remotely digitized. In the film, these spectrum's are inhabited at polar opposites by Jack White and The Edge. It is revealed that The Edge has an individual, no two alike effect for nearly every U2 song. He shows how there is a sort of artistic approach to the aid of technical effects and devices. Then there is Jack White, who rebels against technology like a 4 year old to broccoli. His guitars and sound are happily obtained from thrift stores or places tech head musicians wouldn't dare touch. However, White is clearly in search of a specific sound. Jimmy Page appears to be somewhere in the middle of the two, having a raw sound but with the aid of some effect and polished gear.

I am very much opposed to overly used effects when I play. However, in watching the film it occurred to me that the effect is not the instrument or the pedal, but the player. Just as a paint brush doesn't talk or move without the aid of an artist, a guitar sounds how its handler wants it to sound. The artist is the effect pedal. The instrument is being played through them as much as anything digitally manipulated. The film made me think about how I create and what I use to create with.

It would be interesting to see the movie with other guitarists that cover more than a mostly rock n' roll spectrum. What would it have been like if BB King were there? Or how about a jazz or classical player who can manipulate the guitar into other absurdly beautiful or technical spectrums? Or, in a dream world - could you imagine if Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi Hendrix were still alive and played together in this film?

I left the film wanting to begin playing again after a several year hiatus that had been brought on by my own lack of inspiration clogged by the demands of the stages in my life. Just hearing about how these men discovered music, play an instrument, and love their work made this an infectious movie. I cannot think of too many movies which left me wanting to go out and be creative. I got home, plugged in "Big Red" (all musicians name their instruments) and wrote a song.

All of the sudden I was playing music again, and it felt really good.

Questions to consider:

1. How are you creative? What is your primary means of creativity?

2. What inspires your creativity?

3. How often do you spend time admiring and praising the creativity of others?

4. If you haven't felt creative lately, what do you think some reasons might be?

5. What is something you have made that you are proud of?

6. How do you encourage the creativity of others?

7. Who inspires your creativity?

Liar Liar (or how I woke up one day and noticed my pants were very large)

This morning when I woke up, something felt different.

I went downstairs to start my day off with a run and noticed that my clothes felt baggy. What else is strange is that I ran the whole route instead of jogged it. After my run when I went to the kitchen for breakfast, I skipped right over to some oatmeal and fruit, a change of pace from the usual sugary cereal. I also happened to have packed a lunch the night before that looked abnormally trim. I finished my morning routine and - again - went on to notice that my clothing was balloon parachute worthy. What happened?

"Liar Liar" asks a potent question: If you woke up one day with a massive change in your life - How would you notice? How would your day be different?

Jim Carrey comically acts out the scenario as a lawyer who habitually lies. It's an older film many of us have seen that has a 3 part structure capped by a saccharine ending. Of Jim Carrey's comedy's, it's probably my favorite due to the way it showcases his comedic talent. The humor is just right, and it is hard to imagine anyone else besides Jim Carrey in the role. I am also personally fond of Tom Shadyac (Bruce Almighty, Ace Ventura), the film's director. Based on who I know him to be from his work with student's at Pepperdine, I have a lot of respect for the man which automatically endears me to his movies.

I want to draw attention to its central theme - change. While lying is the vice that is used to demonstrate change, I think the movie is less about the virtue of telling the truth and more about change in general. The movie poses a great question - if you woke up tomorrow and that habit you most wanted to change in your life were changed - how would you know? What would you notice?

Carrey never wishes away the lying, his change is the wish of his son. Yet, in thinking about change, this often true of ourselves. We are far too often not the instigators of change in our life even though we are ultimately the one's responsible for it. A friend or loved one may instead point out in us an aspect of our lives which is destructive because they feel and see the negative habit with a clearer view than we do. We are often unable to notice it. Think of a close friend in your life - have you ever confronted them on something? What was their reaction?

Change is hard because we make it hard. If not for ourselves, change would be easy in most cases. We are responsible for those behaviors we want to change. The reason is because destructive behavior serves a purpose. For example, I was once told by an overeater support group therapist that he got many doctors and nurses in his group. Why would medical professionals overeat or harm their bodies when they treat its ill effects so often? The therapist's answer was that these doctor's and nurses often have an entitlement mentality that plays out as something like: "I worked extra long hours today and served my patient's with hard work. As a result, I can treat myself to this doughnut (or whatever vice it may be)." For them, the food serves the purpose of comfort and reward for their sacrificial work.

How many of us can identify with a long, stressful day and then feel like we earned that extra large blended coffee drink? I know I can. What if it became a comfortable habit?

Change is hard, and we often do what we can to sabotage it. Sometimes we resist change so much that we are willing to be deceitful with those we love the most. Think of Carrey in the film attempting to manipulate his own son to get the change reversed. The scene is uncomfortable at some level to watch because we know Carrey is not interested in his son, but his son is deeply interested in a relationship with him. Often when a vice serves a function in our life - drugs, alcohol, overeating, lying, etc. - we are scared to do life without it. We thrive on that thing which ironically harms us and our relationships.

There is a principle in family therapy called "homeostasis" which is another way of saying "family functioning." When one person changes - the alcoholic stops drinking, the son or daughter puts up a parental boundary, etc - it typically means things get worse before they get better. It makes change all the more difficult. However, as with a dentist's visit to get a tooth pulled, it sometimes takes a degree of pain to remove something before healing sets in.

So, let's do an example. We'll suppose that you noticed recently you have been spending too much time on the internet. If you woke up tomorrow and this were changed, what would you first notice? You might notice that you don't have the compulsion to log in as much to certain e-mail accounts or websites. You might notice that you pick up the phone and call a friend to socialize. You might even head to the beach and just be still with God. You may notice that all of the sudden - you have time on your hands you didn't have before. You also might feel a little bit scared about this newfound connection through disconnection. That's okay. Better yet - that's a good thing. Change is scary, but all of us need it at times in our life to become more mature (or to the believer - more like Jesus). This is the process of refinement, or ultimately - growth. And like all things that grow, growth often coincides with health.

So now, what do you want to change?

Magnolia (1999)

I have now seen Magnolia at least 4 times over several years. It is a unique movie, in that each viewing provokes new reactions, while solidifying older observations. It is a multilayered, deeply rewarding film experience. But it is a movie that seems to demand your participation like few other movies do. I always knew Magnolia was a great movie, but I have never been sure I could explain why. I think I have gotten closer and would like to share some observations.

The first time I saw Magnolia was during college. I turned it off part way through Tom Cruise's first Frank T.J. Mackey sequence. Frank Mackey is a self help guru who prances about on stage showing men how to score through emotionally manipulative means. He is never physically or verbally subtle about his intentions. At the time, I felt that it was too uncomfortable and I turned the movie off.

I later learned more about the movie and felt like giving Magnolia a second chance. This time, I was sucked in. So much of the film, specifically Cruise's character, made sense. It is one of few movies I feel thoroughly justifies its crasser leanings. There is a reason the man is perverse, but the movie doesn't praise it or let him get away with it.

It also proved to me something hardly any other film has been able to: Tom Cruise can be a really great actor. Watching him interact with his near dead Father is convincing and brutal.

The third time I became more aware of the technical end of things: The long, elaborate tracking shot which rivals Scorsese's Copa Cabana scene in "Goodfellas," the inundation of music, and the precision of the writing. I read up on some of the symbolism, watched for specific numbers to appear throughout the movie, and found it to be even better than my previous viewing.

I participated in watching the movie.

Now I have seen it a fourth time. During viewing #4, many more things became visible to me. My observations are listed below in detail, so beware of spoilers.

First, I noticed that Magnolia is a movie told in movements. Each movement is closely accompanied by specific music (which never repeats itself later in the film), weather conditions, and technical differences. The only thing consistent between each movement is Aimee Mann's voice.

It almost feels like an opera. Movement 1 is introduction, with a thoroughly gripping set up of characters and themes. Movement 2 is where everyone slowly falls down. Their facades begin to crack. Movement 3 shows the characters heading into (and arriving at) rock bottom. Movement 4 is the crash. Everything breaks, secrets are exposed, wounds are wide open. Movement 5 is a movement towards redemption. Each character begins to sense it. They don't necessarily move up - that would be disengenuine. But the fact is that they look up. That's all P.T. Anderson needs to show us, and that's all we need to see.

Watching Magnolia in this way helped me to experience it much differently than in any previous viewing. I felt like I had a road map.

A major theme (or gimmick?) of Magnolia is the multiple characters story lines. Unlike "Crash," Magnolia's characters are more difficult to connect. I finally saw far more clearly how they are all connected in this viewing. Consider sequences such as the one where the old man is saying his last, bitter, grieving words about regret yet the camera is entirely on another character the whole time. He is narrating the other characters thoughts and feelings as much as expressing his own. Or consider the future that awaits the brilliant child game show contestant. We can see his adult counterpart living his life should the child continue on being dominated by his openly abusive Father. Even if the characters never all end up in the same physical space in the movie, the occupy similar territory in other ways.

Thematically, I am convinced Magnolia is a movie focused on masculinity. Notice that the driving narrative predominantly revolves around men. Anderson focuses thematically on men and Father's in nearly all of his work - Remember "There Will Be Blood" and it's reliance on the role of oppressive Father? What about the role of Fatherhood in Anderson's debut film "Hard Eight"? Magnolia is consistent with this theme.

The roles males play in Magnolia is quite diverse - we have a male nurse, a male chauvinist, successful men, Father's, husbands, a "good" man, and children. It is not just that these roles exist in the movie on their own; they all seem to be quite purposeful. I think the biggest role of the movie is the role of a Father. Consider each character - Frank T.J. Mackey and his Father, the Father of the cocaine addict, or the quiz kid's present but emotionally tortuous Father. The literal and emotional absence of Father's in Magnolia appears to contribute to the majority of what happens in the movie. We see how families suffer at their greed, lust, and emotional absence.

There is more - the narrator is fixed on the line about the past not being through with us. As a therapist who largely subscribes to a classic Family Systems therapy approach to treatment, this is refreshing. I believe we all play out roles from our past in our lives today. Birth order, emotional roles, and triangled communication are examples birthed from our families of origin. It affects intimacy, attachment to others, and personality. Consider again Frank T.J. Mackey: He had to deal with the loss of his Mother and the emotional absence of his Father. He does not know, nor had he likely ever known, intimacy. He knows sex, but he does not know love. These are patterns and themes that his past gave him as an adult. Is it any wonder that he makes a business out of it?

Magnolia is a long, dense movie. It takes its time, and it demands your participation. I still eagerly await my next viewing of it - each time I've watched it with someone, we talk fruitfully at the end about it. There are still things about it I don't get - the frogs being one of them (anyone have a theory about this?). But, hopefully these thoughts can provide you with some clarity about the movie.

I am curious for those who have seen it what about the film you enjoyed most? What themes did you pick up on that resonated with you?

Questions for Counselor's:

1. What role does family history play in your work with your client's?

2. What character would have given you the most counter-transference?

3. What type of a client might you encourage to watch this film? To what purpose?

Questions for Viewer's:

1. Which character did you identify with the most? In what way?

2. Can you think of a role you played (or still play) in your family? How has this role impacted your relationships today?

3. What character bothered you the most? Why? Do you identify with them in any way?

4. Consider the line "we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." Do you believe this? Why or why not?

5. Consider the abusive Father and his brilliant son and where their story line ends. What do you think of the son's confrontation? The Father's response? Is there a family member whom you've ever thought about confronting? If so, what do you hope it would accomplish?

6. What sequence was the most memorable to you?

7. One character comments that he has a lot of love to give, but he wants to have a place to give it. Have you ever identified with this statement?

8. Forgiveness appears to be a big theme in the movie. How have you experienced forgiveness in your own life as forgiver? What about forgiven?

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” has all of the ingredients of films I am drawn to: a well known director who has masterpieces to his name (Sidney Lumet – aka “Network,” “12 Angry Men,” among loads of others), respected actors and actresses (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Albert Finney, etc), and a fantastic premise that appeals to one of my favorite genre’s: noir.

Consider the set-up: Two brothers agree to rob their parent’s jewelry store as they are in need of some cash. Ethan Hawke’s character needs the money to pay child support and deal with rough times. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character just needs the money (though I am not sure I understood exactly why). The set-up may sound harsh, but the brothers know that their parents insurance will cover the losses, and they reason that no one will get hurt. It’s a victimless crime that they can only benefit from.

Right?

The film is told in a mildly out of sync narrative style where we jump forward and backwards in time, with plot points nicely revealed as we need them (think “21 Grams”). It certainly does well to ratchet up the tension. Sidney Lumet knows how to make the movie turn white knuckle. The script originally had the brothers written as friends, but Lumet’s decision to change the friends into brothers makes this “all in the family” tone benefit the feel of the movie. The movie would not be nearly as compelling without it.

But, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and I didn’t get along too well. It is a dark movie. Not dark in the way “The Dark Knight” is, but dark in the way few, if any, movies I have ever seen are. Consider a comparison with “The Dark Knight”: The Joker is a morally absent, deviant monster being combated by a clearly good force. By contrast to the Joker, “Knight’s” Gotham city mobsters appear almost as good guys. It makes his unpredictability a major point of tension as the Joker is loyal to no one person, but rather the philosophy that all mankind is inherently corruptible and prone to evil. The Joker sets out to prove this in every way he can. The Joker’s belief in everyone’s evil side allows the movie to explore what everyday men and women do when they have the capacity to commit evil.

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is evil run amuck. There are no good guys. Everyone is out for themselves. The result is a film that is possibly the least redemptive, most intently punishing movie I have seen. Perhaps thematically, I could give it credit for being an interesting take on sin without redemption, or guilt without forgiveness. But so what? Why should we care? “Devil…” starts bad, gets worse, then ends.

Why should I care when not one person in the movie is worth caring for?

As a study of guilt, “Devil…” is worth mentioning. One of the brothers has to cope with his role in carrying out the plan to its less than ideal ends. His guilt is palpable, I felt guilty just watching him. But, I didn’t find the movie saying anything about guilt other than showing guilt on screen.

Acting is universally well done, if predictably so. Hoffman, Finney, Hawke, and Tomei are all proven. Lumet’s mastery of direction gives a tightly focused character for each thespian to reveal. Lumet insists the movie is a melodrama, almost apologetically. I think it works and it helps to explain some of the contextual dramatics on display. However, it is worth mentioning that for some reason Marisa Tomei appears dead set on wearing as little or no clothing throughout as much of the movie as possible. I am not sure why Lumet made this decision. It is almost distracting to the narrative and focus of the film. It got to the point where I expected her to be topless in every scene. Sometimes nudity can serve a genuinely important point to the story, characters, or otherwise, but here it just feels mostly unnecessary.

In spite of so many ingredients I crave in a great movie, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” proved that the parts were superior than the whole. It’s intent to observe careless adultery, murder, drug use, and evil for 2 hours may be an interesting character study, but the lack of purpose of any kind hurt any of what it intended. Sure – perhaps we could argue it is a revenge story between a Father and his son, or the tried and true moral that nothing is easy in life. But again – so what? Why should I care? Why should you?

I think I’d rather watch “Network” for great Lumet, or “The Man Who Wasn’t There” for great noir.

Lars and the Real Girl - Second Viewing

(Originally posted in August 2008)

How do you show your friends you love them? What words do you use? What actions do you take? What objects in your life take on a meaning bigger than intended? “Lars and the Real Girl” is about how families, neighbors, and friends cope with mental illness. But “Lars and the Real Girl” is also about so much more.

Lars is an introvert on the far end of the scale who avoids contact with others as much as possible. However, things change when Lars tells his brother and sister in law (his neighbors) that he has met someone – a woman. The problem is, that woman happens to be a sex doll named “Bianca.”

The movie is advertised in a way to make you assume it is (yet) another film about a quirky guy/girl whom the world just doesn’t get. Even the back of the box makes it seem like it is a romantic story about finding true love, as though “Lars” is a sort of off beat romantic comedy. However, this is not a flat, callous movie with alienating “catch-phrase-catch-quirk” characters (like Napolean Dynamite or Juno). Lars is different. It takes its characters and themes way below the surface.

“Lars” works on multiple levels. Many people have wondered what therapy would be like if they went. Look no further than here. Patricia Clarkson’s character is written and acted so well (playing both an MD and a therapist – which is true of smaller towns), that I felt as though I was peering in on a master therapist at work. For example, many of us might ask Lars about Bianca and try to "fix" or understand the problem. However, when Lars is first presented to the therapist, she doesn’t ask. She lets Lars tell her when he is ready. Her focus is on her professional, yet intimate relationship with Lars. She is not concerned with hurriedly fixing a “problem.”

Second, Lars’s family reaction and coping to his diagnosis is very real. When they are told what Lars has, one member wants to fix it right away. “How long does this illness last?” “What medicine can he take that will change him quickly?” “Won’t this be embarrassing?” The other simply asks, “How can we help?” It is a perfect response to someone in crisis. Watching not only the family, but the town characters love Lars is a workable template for how we can respond to those in crisis.

This is where the film got unrealistic to me. There is no way that a large group of people could love someone so much. On my first viewing, this ruined the movie for me because I assumed it was asking me to simply “watch” a silly movie. However, on my second viewing, the film simply asked “what if?” What if a group of people truly loved so much that they selflessly held and walked with someone without advice giving, “shoulds,” or nagging? There is one powerful line where a character says “That’s what friends do in times of crisis. They sit and they wait.” Job’s comforters are nowhere to be found. "Lars" powerfully shows the viewer how we can love others in times of unknown.

We can simply sit, wait, and listen.

Thematically, “Lars and the Real Girl” can be boiled down to being a movie about love. While there is much to say about this, I most want to comment on another theme of the movie - the theme of attachment. Object Relations Theory therapists must see this film. If you want to better understand Object Relations theory, this film shows how a transitional object can be utilized in place of displaced attachment.

It is important that we consider when we watch the film what the power of individual objects can be for us. This makes Lars condition relatable to the average viewer. While this may seem strange, I would argue that what happens to Lars is something that has happened to you. How many of us can recall a doll, stuffed animal, invisible friend, or other blank object that was real and existing to us? They had no identity and language, save for the way we made them to be. Those objects represented something to us. For Lars, Bianca is his means of dealing with physical touch, grief, and human relationship (among other things). She is blank canvas of emotions and attachment patterns that are unique to Lars.“Bianca” is very much a real person in spite of her plastic frame. She is real because Lars projects onto her what is real to him. He projects onto her a relationship where Bianca is the manifestation of Lars’s reality. For Lars to be that vulnerable and open with real people is too difficult for him.

“Lars and the Real Girl” is funny and painful with a certain tenderness. Perhaps it is because the filmmakers acknowledge that this is because these are what love and relationships at their most real can be: funny, painful, selfless, intimate, etc. When we love one another past our understanding of normal, the power of that love can be more than we really know. “Lars and the Real Girl” gets my highest recommendation.

Questions For Counselors:

1. Recall the sequence where Lars family is told clinically about Lars condition. Did you have any reaction/countertransference to either character?

2. What is the metaphor of Bianca for Lars?

3. How does metaphor and analogy play into your clients behaviors?

4. Object Relations Theory appears to provide a great case conceptualization for Lars symptoms. What would your treatment plan be for this type of a client? Would you incorporate any other theories?

5. Are there any ethical issues for the therapist/M.D?

6. Consider the role of physical touch in Lars treatment. Would you consider this ethical?

7. Consider the way the therapist reveals personal information about herself. Is it appropriate? When is it not appropriate to reveal information about yourself to your clients?

Questions for Viewers:

1. Think of a friend or family member going through an emotionally painful experience. What does the movie say might be helpful in the way you treat others in their pain?

2. Recall the sequence where Lars human love interest first sees Bianca after church. Can you think of a family member who pays more attention to an inanimate object than you (a car, a videogame machine, etc)? Why do you think they give so much attention to that object?

3. When was the last time you felt like someone cared for you in a meaningful way? How did that person show it?

4. When was the last time you attempted to care for someone else in a meaningful way? How did you show it?

Henry Poole Is Here

(Originally posted in February 2009)

After much discussion and thought from seeing "Fireproof," I felt that it was a great message packed into a poor movie that was ultimately still worth watching. "Henry Poole is Here" might just be the film I was thinking of when it comes to a movie about faith. It still manages to maintain a sense of the abstract, a fair degree of subtlety, and artfulness. Sure, the last act gets pretty heavy handed, but I hope that more people will check this one out and entertain the questions it asks the skeptic in all of us - what if?

Henry Poole (Luke Wilson) has just moved to an older suburban neighborhood in Southern California seeking solitude. Upon moving in, he gives his realtor the message that he actually won't be staying very long. Within a few days of his arrival, he meets a very inquisitive Latino neighbor named Esperanza who seems all too happy and cheerful amidst Henry's dour demeanor. One morning, he goes outside to find Esperanza in elated affect while observing his backyard wall. She claims that it is an image of Jesus Christ. Suddenly things start happening in Henry's life as a result.

Several things make "Henry Poole is Here" a really great movie. The characters are drawn pretty realistically. I was convinced of each characters emotional struggles, and found that when specific things happened in their life, it was not a stretch to believe it (save for one subplot which felt unnecessary). Second, the cinematography was beautiful. The movie was shot in La Mirada, but more beautifully than a film of this type deserves. Great point of view shots, some great tracking shots, effective use of slow motion, and even beautifully contrasting colors. Particularly, the inner house's blue painted walls with the aging brown ceiling looked wonderful (I watched the film on blu ray, and I can confidently say that this is one of the best looking blu ray discs I have ever seen).

However, what makes the film work is that it approaches faith in Christ and miracles very openly. It nicely balances Henry's skepticism with Esperanza's faith. It would be unfair to make the film an atheists vs. believer’s conflict. It really seems to hit on the skeptic that resides in all of us. How many of us have read Christ's miracles to bring sight to the blind or walking to the lame? Could it still happen today? I can think of many charismatic denominations that have been vehemently opposed - even denounced - by non-charismatic denominations because they believe that the miracles in the Bible continue regularly today. Some conservative churches seem to have a real lack of faith in the literal power of Christ so frequently written about in the Bible.

Still, the film manages to ask these questions while not preaching to the viewer. The discussions I anticipate that could be had afterwards are many. I know I have heard the reports of the image of Christ burned into some food product and attracting many of the faithful. Internally, I feel bewildered that people would be so drawn to something that seems so silly.

But what if?

Doesn't God use the foolish things to shame the wise? I had to think of my own experience of miracles in front of my own eyes, and conversely disappointments when prayers went unanswered. We are all skeptical of things for a reason. Why? What would it take to move our hearts from skepticism to openness?

What helped drive these messages home was the effectiveness of the actors. Luke Wilson's hangdog face and hopeless eyes were directed in such a way as to give the man dimension. This is the best I have seen Luke Wilson act - and yes, I have seen "The Royal Tenenbaums." I doubt he will ever be any better, and that is a huge compliment. Additionally, Esperanza is portrayed and acted as annoying, but also loving. She is not the movie world's religious fanatic we have come to know and seen poorly portrayed in movies past who is portrayed as a one note moron. The film esteems her because we see that she cares about her downbeat neighbor, which is why she bursts into his life in the first place. Much can also be said of the supporting actors, such as George Lopez in a small but genuine role as a priest.

The film gets too heavy towards the end with extended music sequences and overly drawn out emotional climaxes. Most of the music is outstanding - particulraly the score - but there are a few duds in the bunch. It reminded a little of the ethereal "Crash" soundtrack.

Apparently Henry Poole has quite the back-story, but much of it was edited out which I think helps the film more than hurts it. As the movie progresses, we learn more and more about who Henry Poole is and how he came to be. It is effective and it works. Though the characters all seem to have a story, the movie nicely keeps it focused on Henry's without sidetracking too much and losing its focus.

In a world where it is easy to shut off and let our own cynicism and skepticism forcefully override possibilities, "Henry Poole is Here" is an uplifting, even hopeful experience. One of the things I criticized "Fireproof" for was its lack of subtlety (which admittedly was not its purpose) and its lack of an artful soul. "Henry Poole is Here" was more of an effective film for me in the realm of faith as an emotional, thought provoking, and even entertaining experience. Don't miss out on this little gem of a movie, and don't forget to ask yourself: what if?

Fireproof

(Originally posted in February 2009)

So, take a guess. Which film over the last year set box office records and made among the biggest profits of the last year? If you said "The Dark Knight," you'd be half right. The biggest surprise was the Kirk Cameron stoner comedy "Fireproof."

Nah, I'm just kidding brah. It was more of a drama than a comedy.

The truth is that when you make a movie for half a million bucks and it grosses 33 million, that's a pretty sizable return on your investment. It certainly had studios turning their head once again as they did with Mel's Passion. Critics seemed to not enjoy it much, but churches packed the theaters. Make no mistake - Joe and Suzy moviegoer probably didn't see the trailer and think to themselves "It's like Backdraft, only with that guy from Growing Pains!" No, they probably saw it on invitation from a friend who goes to church. I finally saw it for the first time on a marriage retreat over the weekend. The movies audience is so built in and preach to the choir that a retreat attendee, who when he found out I hadn't seen the movie, jokingly stated "and you call yourself a Christian?"

I guess my faith now depends on my attendance of a film. Go figure.

"Fireproof" tells the story of a firefighter (played by Kirk Cameron with surprising believability and capability) who is dedicated to his job and his co-workers, living by the mantra that he will never leave his partner behind. Yet, the partner he has committed to - his wife - is ready to leave him. His marriage is ready to collapse, and he can't put the pieces together why. The film then proceeds to tell their story.

"Fireproof" can be judged on two levels: filmmaking (or art) and message movie. Considering context and purpose in the making of any film provides the angle from which many films are judged. No one expected "Kung Fu Panda" to be "Schindler's List" and likewise no one expected a comic book movie about a man and bats to do more than entertain...but we all have our expectation breakers, don't we?

As a piece of art - "Fireproof" plain sucks. It is awkwardly paced and it contains the dubious hallmarks of Christian entertainment - melodramatic story with heavy overacting, a conversion sequence, a complete lack of subtlety (no character shows you how they are feeling, they all are required to tell us verbally as though we can't figure it our for ourselves), and poor attempts at humor (the white guy is gonna dance like he lives in the hood...Hilarious!). And don't tell me this is an issue of budget either. Plenty of independent cinema is made artfully (some would say the bigger the budget, the lesser the art) on small cash.

"Fireproof" is also too overt in its storytelling and leaves little room for the abstract. There is no room for the viewer to apply the movie as they see it, it tells you what it wants you to feel and how you should feel about it. Visually, the cinematography is awful. Camera angles are flat and lack depth (there may be memorable sequences, but not much could be said of lasting images), and the film lacks any visual identity. The camera does not enhance the story or characters, it lazily watches them. The music is syrupy in places with "Third Day" garbage type alternative songs, and it features not 1, but multiple montages with some "rockin" tunes. Last, some of the stereotypes bordered on offensive (why do all the black women in the movie say "mmhmm" at the end of every sentence?).

But...

The movie is actually refreshing as a message. I recognize the film's context: it was not made to be 8 1/2: the sequel. It was clearly made to preach a message, and as a sermon it has many bright spots. It features a compelling dilemma - if your marriage sucks, why? What can you do about it? The movie has a linear purpose and point that you will either appreciate or not - it's that simple.

Also refreshing is that "Fireproof" not only presents a dilemma, but it gives the viewer a resource to try out should they share the dilemma (provided you can go pick it up for 15 more bucks at your local bookstore). It is nice to hear some practical "try this" advice. I think having a tangible step for couples to take is greatly beneficial.

Last, if anything you view in life has a clear purpose to help resuscitate your marriage, it can't be all bad right? Same goes with the movie. To watch it means that like any sermon, you are expected to talk about it with those around you afterwards. I liked that.

So where does it leave things at the end of the day? Is it a movie? A sermon? I think it tries to be both, but it miserably fails at the art part. I still have to admire that it is independent filmmaking - the church that made the film obviously believes in their vision and they are financing something they believe in with little studio insider influence. Like it or not, that is the spirit of independent cinema.

Yet, it makes me sad that Christians still struggle to make compelling cinema. There seems to be a distrust in the audience, that if the message is not so specific and overt, they won't get it. If the content is not free of reality - the fact that real people sometimes use "bad" words, have sex outside of marriage, etc - then the message is somehow obstructed. Nor is the other side true, that all films must contain a certain degree of despicable acts in order to be believable.

It saddens me that we don't have much in the way of compelling art that glorifies God. Remember - Christianity used to be at the forefront of art in the classical sense - the majestic chapels built and canvassed around the world, the beautiful music of Bach, etc. Not much can be said now.

It is not to say that "Fireproof" is entirely without merit or purpose. Many individuals have and will see the film and be inspired to do something about their marriage. No amount of crappy movie making in the world could argue against that. It just sets the tone for more uninteresting films that do little to enhance their message beyond the target audience.

For the reader - what films would you recommend that meet the balance of artful yet spiritually relevant? I am curious as to what you would suggest...

Rachel Getting Married

“Rachel Getting Married” has the kind of insight and truthfulness that Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach wish they could communicate regarding family dysfunction. “The Royal Tenenbaums” was cartoony, “Margot at the Wedding” felt too alienated from reality, and “The Squid and the Whale” while great, has a lesser degree of the alienation.

“Rachel Getting Married” stars Anne Hathaway as a recovering addict with mountains of pains, regrets, and destruction from her addictive life. As the film progresses, stories come out, and the sequences build upon themselves revealing history and secrets. The movie is a handheld cameraman’s fantasy of recording dysfunction for 2 straight hours.

The movie plays its characters and themes spot on. I have arrived at a point where a film has to really do something right to convince me regarding its portrayal of dysfunction and/or therapy. Rachel gets it right. The AA scenes are real and convincing. Hathaway’s character is written well and acted realistically. The family system is also portrayed with textbook predictability regarding addiction: Essentially, when one person is an addict in a family, the family often scapegoats the individual and makes them the family whipping post. Rather than individual members taking responsibility for their actions, they focus on the addict. Rather than being vulnerable, they make it the addicts fault. Rather than dealing with the way we hurt one another in a family, it’s easier to negatively focus on the more overt addict. Everyone plays a role and is still responsible.

When Rachel’s sister comes home for Rachel’s wedding, the writer and director give a solid picture of a family functioning on dysfunction until the addict comes home and blows it apart. These scenes are played out with tension not unlike a good thriller – what will she say? How will she embarrass herself? It’s to the films credit that things are portrayed the way they are that this type of tension exists. It probably doesn't hurt that this was directed by Jonathan "Silence of the Lambs" Demme either.

Each family member plays typical roles: The Father is a passive man who refuses to be real, insisting instead on trying to make people laugh and draw attention away from the real issues. The biological Mother is cold and withdrawn, parenting her adult daughter like a child. The self centered, narcissistic addict who – in spite of it being her sisters wedding – insists on taking grand opportunities to draw attention to herself. I could go on and on.

“Rachel Getting Married” had me worried with Anne Hathaway in the lead. In fact, when the movie opens with a shot of her face in her scenester haircut, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud – this is Ms. “Princess Diaries” Anne Hathaway trying to be tough. However, 5 minutes in I lost track of her goodie-goodie roles and was able to focus on her character. She really deserved her Oscar nomination.

While “Rachel Getting Married” plays through to its burnt out, exhausting finish, I couldn’t help but think about the purpose of film in general. Some of us want to be entertained, some of us want to be enlightened, some of us want to be challenged, some want all 3. The movie will do more for those who find their entertainment in the challenges the movie presents about the family system. However, don’t go in expecting a fun family drama that resolves itself by the end. While some may feel the film tries too hard to communicate pain and brokenness, I actually felt the film dealt with it so well. The reality is this – we are all at some level in pain or broken. None of our families is perfect. But we are still family. As one family member poignantly states in a toast to the group, “this is what heaven will be like.”

Indeed.

Who I'd Like To Meet

When I lived in Malibu for 4 years, I heard an unspoken “thou shalt not talk with the famous” rule. It wasn’t hard to resist the temptation to strike up conversations with John Stamos or Tony Danza (so…uh…are you still the boss?), and talking to Britney while she jets away with her kids and 50 paparazzi is impossible. It’s unavoidable when they play on your softball team, but those are rare exceptions. However, most of us did have one person that regardless of whomever we were with or whatever we were doing, we would have gone out of our way to talk with them. I started thinking about this “rule” while reading up a bit more on Marjoe Gortner.

Marjoe Gortner is a dropout evangelical. You know that kid in Bible class who knew all the answers, but when he was an adult was a deeply committed nothingist? Marjoe may sort of be that person. Raised a charismatic pentacostal, a preacher by the age of 4 (and abused along the way), Marjoe epically threw off the shackles of Christian business-ism in Samson like fashion.

Marjoe was the subject of an academy award winning documentary of the same name where he went around doing revival tours because he was short on cash. He brought a documentary film crew along with him because they would film his sermons, interactions with the faithful, and poignant one on one confessions. The catch was that he never believed a word of the faith part. He was in it for the money. On camera, he had a certain believability that probably would have fooled me as much as you. He wanted to show the world that you didn’t need church to have a spiritual experience. By association, Marjoe's film tried to teach the world that this new Christian movement was really just a bunch of hucksters and thieves, and he knew how to con as good as any other.

By today’s standards, the film lets me down and energizes me in equal measures. I am glued to the screen by Marjoe who appears to be a gifted vocalist for the pentacostal choir. His stage presence is catchy, like that punk rock band you saw once at a small venue in high school and haven’t seen or heard from since. Some of his sermons also had a fair amount of theological depth that seminarians today often convolute to the faithful.

The let down of the film is in its fascination of Marjoe and the Christian movement at the time. The cameras just roll while he preaches and we observe. It’s the same shtick ad nauseum for much of the film. It ultimately unbalances the person of Marjoe against the myth of Marjoe. After thinking about it more today, I have come to realize that contextually the filmmakers wondered who those crazy Christians were. What were they saying? What is the hippie Jesus people movement? What exactly was happening under those tents where alternate substances weren’t used to cause vibrating humans who talk in jello speech? Contextually and historically the film is curious, but today it comes across as unfocused and repetitive.

Marjoe remains a constantly interesting figure to me because of the one on one conversation’s where his voice does not fluctuate in volume or directedness. He somberly talks of being raised by an abusive Mom and Dad whose love was dependent upon his ability to memorize a script. Instead of being able to play outside with other kids, he had to stay in and memorize Bible verses and sermon cues. Think The Jackson 5, but for preachers. In the film he shares a few brief tricks of the trade to help fill up a minister’s pocket. All the while, I am endlessly fascinated.

I feel connected to Marjoe for reasons I can only try and explain. I grew up in a Christian home where church attendance was a regular part of the week, like school or Tuesday taco night. I led worship and passionately led others in singing the songs. I started and led a Bible study on my Jr. High campus and led others to Christ before I could shave. I feel like in many ways, I know him. He and I would have sat next to one another on stage while being broadcast on KWVE before the legions of Calvary-ites. He would have probably done a good “performance” for the crowd and wooed many to Christ, so long as the money (or more specifically - love from his parents) kept coming in.

Still, in many ways I have no idea who the man is. My parents never abused me or made me stay home from playing with friends to memorize Bible verses. I asked of my own accord to lead worship because it was always fun to play music with friends, especially when such obvious, droning, “4 chords with a key change” songs were easy to teach to this 12 year old rock star in the making. Plus, I do love Jesus, which helps. Still, I knew what Marjoe looked like in my youth group – he was the restricted, socially awkward, bug eyed Bible smasher on Balboa island. I feel like I knew that serial youth groupie, but never had any idea who they really were.

So, yeah I have a famous person I would go out of my way to meet. A student on my Residence Life staff unknowingly met this person. While serving drinks as a bartender at a cocktail party as part of a routine catering service, this famous person said to him, “I bet you’re the guy who forgets to put on his condom, aren’t you?” I would have babbled something about Fellini and then drooled a little bit on my shirt. Then, I would have posted on a message board at imdb.com about how I met Martin Scorsese and he was a really cool guy who likes to talk about condoms.

Today though, I add that I want to meet Marjoe. It’s a crazy idea to me in some respects because I have no idea what I would say. I mean, consider his company – I really wanted to meet Bjork, a Go-Bot, and Martin Scorsese (still true to that one). I don’t have a pre-packaged message for him. I wouldn’t try and share the gospel with a guy who used to sell it like a can of Coca Cola. I think I’d just shake nervously a little bit, and then talk to him. He is probably amongst the most wounded of individuals out there. He was abused, a faker, and later a semi failed actor with roles in such classics as "American Ninja 3." But I still would want to be in his company and ask him about what his fascinating life was like. I’d want to do a sort of follow up to the films many gaps.

I typically am triggered when I see overprotective parents who uses Christianity as a punishment to their children. It scares me. I see someone being abused. I don't hear Jesus invitation to "Let the little children come to me." When your child’s love and relationship with you is dependent upon their ability to quote the Bible, sing a song, attend church (etc), then the child is your little wooden toy. They don’t exist to develop into who God made them to be, they exist to be a feather in your cap. I don’t know what it's like to be a parent – to worry about my son or daughter when they go out at night. Who are they with? What are they doing? Are they safe? But I do know what its like to be a son. Marjoe never really did. Maybe if I see him someday, I’ll buy him a juice box and teach him how to kick a soccer ball. It’d probably be more interesting than talking about condoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bnyNwRKDrY&feature=channel_page

Waltz With Bashir

I used to work with preschool aged children diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a mild form of autism. One of my co-workers ended up becoming a pretty close friend of mine. In between wiping boogers off of our arms that the kids tried to give as a gift, or help them figure out what their task was, he and I would talk about life, religion, and films.

One such film he recommended that caught my eye via the golden globes was “Waltz With Bashir.” “Waltz With Bashir” is an animated documentary. The filmmaker Ari Folman made it by interviewing his subjects in his own search to understand strange dreams he was having revolving around a massacre during a Lebanese/Israeli war. Folman was an Israeli soldier. As he talks to these individuals, he gets closer to the realities of the war. It all culminates into a final sequence so devastatingly powerful, you simply have to see it to experience it.

Folman then took all of the interviews, spliced them together into a script, had the individuals read their lines in the studio with a bit of acting, animated it all, and gave us “Waltz With Bashir.” If it sounds ambitious, that’s because it is. No one has ever made a film like it before.

Interestingly, I think that this film (as Roger Ebert says) couldn’t have been made any other way. He is examining dreams, memory, and history through his own recollection. Animation allows him to project the surrealism inherent in these individual topics. It leaves room for the abstract, which dreams often contain. There are scenes of beautifully simple orchestral music which enhance these sometimes frightening, violent, and erotic images. At times, the aural and visual come together in a sublime, trance like way that transports you into a different world.

The animation emits a particular style, but this is a rare case where the style isn’t there for the sake of style itself. If I see one more movie titled artistically like Juno, I am going to puke. The style of the art and the images on screen enhance the visual narrative. Without the style in which the story is told, this would be a lesser film.

Interestingly, Folman stated in an interview that he loathes the American idea of war film where men depict a certain brotherhood that makes the fighting almost seem cool. Even though we see them fighting in horrific conditions, you might still say you could live through it if Tom Hanks was your commanding officer, or if Private Joker was in your company. Here, none of the soldiers appear like brothers. You don’t want to be them. There isn’t a tough guy, a comedian, and a brainy guy. There are a bunch of guys who look and feel a certain numbness. Folman states that this was his experience, and I thought it was a refreshing take on who a soldier is.

I had one minor problem with the movie. This is a low budget film, and the animation suffers for it. In a Pixar age, it is that much more present. Some of the movements are very wooden and simplistic. I found this flaw easy to forgive because the style is so great, but it can be noticeable if you’re expecting something with the financial clout of Disney or Dreamworks.

Some have faulted the movie as a documentary for being unable to explain the history of the conflict. It does not "document" a period of history. I was admittedly hard pressed to understand the context of the film due to my general lack of knowledge about the conflict presented on screen. This lack of context takes away from some of the impact of the narrative because it is assumed that we as the viewer know what is going on. However, I saw this more as an individual’s conflict within a narrative. If this is a documentary about a man’s involvement in war, we don’t necessarily need all of the details of the war – we want the experience of the man. Thus, the film is less about the war and more about how man copes with his involvement in it.

The film should also be praised for its careful examination of healing. Folman is being quite open with himself to the viewers, as he clearly suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The film’s flashbacks cement this diagnosis. However, Folman utilizes art as a healer in the film, as he says that by confronting his past and making this film, art helped him to heal. It is really a beautiful testimony and helps to fill a redemptive void in the film.

“Waltz With Bashir” is definitely not for the faint of heart. There are scenes of explicit violence and sex, but this is a film where I think the majority of it has a justifiable purpose. I don’t think Folman needed to go to the lengths he did to animate what one character views on a TV screen, but it is nicely contrasted with some of the other animated nudity in the film. Plus, I am aware that if I complain about graphic nudity in a film with graphic violence while saying nothing of the violence, I am simply putting a hypocrisy target on my chest.

See the film. If it gets hard to follow, stay with it for the knock out of the ending. It will leave you stunned and amazed at what happened. This is a movie which completely deserved its Golden Globe for best foreign film and is one you must go out of your way to see.

The Hangover

Women, I have a secret to reveal about your man that you may not be aware of: You are well aware that we can behave respectfully - even pious - at church, with your parents, and in most professional contexts. However, when men congregate together, we have the tendency to resort to being crass with each other.

Very crass.

Not about you - we would never do that. We are angels about you. But about each other - non stop. We are as enamored with our male anatomy today as we were when we first discovered what existed between our legs in the infant era. We have come to accept one of the sacred truths in life: Penises are funny, and we must make many jokes about them.

Go ahead men - grab that stone on the dirt floor, pick it up over your head and hold it in a raised, ready to throw posture. But before you do - whom of you when in very specific contexts hasn't let loose about all manner of prudish things? What about that certain roommate in college who paraded around in specifically selected "clothing" while the rest of us were on the floor bursting with laughter? Very recently, I visited with a couple folks whom I respect as men of deep faith (who shall remain anonymous) and the jokes were in constant throw all night. It was fun, and we bonded deeper as a result.

This of course justifies everything.

Which leads me to "The Hangover" a movie directed by the guy who brought you "Old School." "The Hangover" is about a group of guys who decide to drink the night away in Vegas for a bachelor party. Problem is, they wake up the next morning with a baby, several animals, a missing groom, and no recollection of the preceding "fun" from the night before. The movie then has the guys piecing together what happened for the next 90 minutes.

To the movies credit, the premise is actually really clever. The idea of a gradually unfolding mystery added in with the raunchy humor actually gave more reason to watch than other films of this ilk. If nothing else, I wanted to know what happened next. It also had more than one funny scene.

The problems though added up for me pretty fast. I guess it's hard for me to care about the characters because they are all so care-less. Seriously, who ever thought it was a good idea to have their bachelor party 2 days before their wedding, especially if the plan is to get as trashed as possible? While some of the guys are genuinely endearing, I can't feel too much love for a group of guys who don't care in the first place.

Second, while the premise is clever, I wanted the writers to do more with it. I don't want to reveal spoilers, but certain characters magically re-appear at the mid point of the movie. It was too convenient. The writing got soft and lazy as the movie played out. You can accuse me of over thinking, but I have been accused of worse.

Third, while many of the jokes were funny, not all of them registered with me. Before you call me a prude, I think "Role Models" (along with "Wedding Crashers") is one of the funniest films I have seen in the last 4 or 5 years. That movie worked for me through and through. "The Hangover" wasn't nearly as consistent, and it left me disappointed.

So yes, I think raunchy jokes can be funny (and "The Hangover" has a healthy supply), and I knew what I would be getting myself into by seeing this movie. I don't fault the film for that. I fault the film for its characters. There still has to be a sense of groundedness or sensibility at some level. These guys aren't heroes to me, they are ultimately fools. The film also makes limited application of its great premise. And the fact is - next year, when the next movie comes along that relies not simply on a good premise but straight raunch, "The Hangover" won't be as funny. That's why certain movies are products of their era that aren't as funny to new viewers (Anyone still re-watching Porky's on a regular basis?). The movies that last are the ones that have solid characters who we care about, and a great story (regardless of genre).

It's not to say that "The Hangover" is by any stretch a strictly bad movie, it's that I think they could have done more with what is there. I know that millions in cash at the box office disagrees with me, but hey, plenty of commercially winsome movies have never done anything for me. In the range of its context, "The Hangover" for me is slightly below Judd Apatow's directed movies, if only because in those films there is a big heart beneath the raunchy jokes. I liked Steve Carrell in "40 Year Old Virgin" and wanted him to find the right woman. Seth Rogen's character had to grow up in "Knocked Up" and move from being a child to be a responsible adult. In "The Hangover," 4 guys just needed to get home before it was too late.

As a result, it may not be easy for the viewer to remember much of what happened the next morning.