The Lone Ranger 75th Anniversary Collection: Story Of A Legend

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

From 1949 to 1957, Clayton Moore starred as the Lone Ranger, the masked vigilante who fired silver bullets but never aimed to kill. The only Texas Ranger to survive the massacre by the Butch Cavendish gang, this man took on the mask to rise above the threats of violence on he and his friends, to take outlaws to task and to make the West safe for everyone. Of course, the Ranger’s partner Tonto (Jay Silverheels) repays the childhood debt in saving his life and becomes the Kato to the Ranger’s Green Hornet, setting the stage for July’s The Lone Ranger with Johnny Depp as Tonto. Peeling back the layers here, we can see a lavish history of justice and a story that has been emulated many times since.

Watching the original episodes, I’m flashing back to my childhood, but recognizing that what I saw in the 1980s may or may not have been in chronological order! But watching them in succession, the overall story of the Ranger, from the ambush to the restoration of Ranger Reid by Tonto, to the taming of Silver, and the pursuit of Cavendish (which takes the majority of the first season), all unroll in serial form, not separate, individual pieces. What’s clear is the consistency of the man, even if he progresses in terms of what he’s responsible for and the relationships he builds with other lawmen and innocent civilians.

One of the first notable moments was the Ranger’s decision to not “put down” Silver. (Of course, Silver didn’t have a name yet, but we could tell the horse would be Silver.) The Ranger recognizes a brokenness in both himself and the horse, which had lost a fight with a hard-charging buffalo, and has compassion, recognizing the beauty that remains in the horse. His willingness to treat the horse in the same way that Tonto had treated him, not as a lost cause but as a redeemable soul, establish a kinder side to the trio (including the horse) that will continue throughout the episodes.

In fact, this “redeeming” aspect is clear in the Ranger’s desire not to kill. He says that it’s up to the law to judge a man, not the person at the other end of a revolver. Even when it would make his life abundantly easier to just kill a villain, not even preemptively but to stop them, the Ranger continues to hold to the code he’s articulated in the first few episodes to his friends. This code seems to set the Ranger apart, especially considering our current antihero/vigilante as violent justice, from what we’ve seen in recent movies, even upgrades to earlier ideas.

What remains to be seen is whether Walt Disney, and the upcoming remake by Gore Verbinski, will maintain the purist character of the Lone Ranger with Johnny Depp’s Tonto serving as both narrator (a necessary art form in the serial) and guide to Artie Hammer’s Lone Ranger. But even more than the question of how the filmmakers handle this (it is Disney), is whether film audiences will respond to a cleaned up articulation of justice? Can the Ranger not kill? Can he really be the chaste (and aloof), dangerous (yet compassionate), above-the-fray figure that he was in the serial? It’s what drove me to the show as a kid… and the reason I still want to watch.

For collectors: The 75th Anniversary Collection includes some seventy-five pages of pictures of the Lone Ranger and Tonto, as well as facts about the production and history concerning the actual character. The Episode Guide was also a helpful tool in exploring the first two seasons, as well as the animated episodes, the Lassie-Lone Ranger crossover, and one of the radio broadcasts. But fans will appreciate the pieces of nostalgia included as well: the “Lone Ranger Victory Corps” membership card (in support of U.S. troops in WWII), the “Lone Ranger Safety Club” registration card, trading cards, a print of Moore with signature, and, my favorite, “The Legend of the Lone Ranger” comic book!

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, TV | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Custom Mary: Faith Or Fanaticism?

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

There have been several fictional attempts to explain, understand, and consider the way that Jesus may appear, interpreting the understanding of the ways that he will “come back” at his “second coming.” Contemporary Christian Music delivered the Hero rock opera; Colin Raye once sang, “What If Jesus Came Back Like That?” Now, H770 Films and writer/director Matt Dunnerstick deliver another interpretation of what it might look like, in story of a Los Angeles Latina named Mary and the machinations of a little storefront church to make Jesus appear, again.

The Custom Mary focuses in on Mary (Alicia Sixtos), who is recruited by the preacher of her church (Travis Hammer) and his father (Henry LeBlanc) to be artificially inseminated with clone DNA based on the Shroud of Turin. A devout Christian, she sees this as her way of helping the kingdom of God come, and agrees to the insemination. But in the meantime, she meets lowriding Joe (James Jolly) who she falls in love with but isn’t intimate with. Still, when the baby is born dark-skinned and unable to speak, the powers behind the plan to bring Jesus back find him incompatible with their expectations for Jesus.

The arrival of Jesus changes everything: it changes Mary’s own sense of herself (and her happiness), it changes her relationship with Joe, and it changes how she is received by the “church family” who put her into this predicament in the first place. What we’ve seen as we watched, the lack of actual spiritual direction by any of the men plotting this, the expectations of Jesus arrival tied to the end of the world, and the way that these men want to control Jesus’ appearance and arrival, all become apparent to Mary, and she’s devastated. But can she recover or will she just be more collateral damage in religious manipulation and fanaticism?

The movie is disturbing, not because it is violent, but because we could actually see this happen. We see it happen on a small scale everyday, how someone is welcomed into the church but then turned aside when they lack the necessary words or style that the “church folk” expect. We see people who are so driven to be holy or spiritual that they lose sight of the actual truths in their holy books, and become something twisted and dangerous. We see our own desire to control what we can of our lives, and recognize that we have “overreached” what we were called to be.

Now, let’s be clear: this is a modern day parable, but you may or may not agree with the Law of the Lowriders’ message. Whether you do or you don’t, this one is an interesting reflection on faith, fanaticism, and the way that we expect and anticipate change and growth in our world today. Ironically enough, Mary becomes a voice for being real, for having faith in the real things rather than the made-up things. Mary becomes a voice for women who now longer will allow manipulative men to control their religious fervor and their understanding of themselves.

The Custom Mary left me thinking, and led me to write, more to see if anyone else is reflecting on this one than recommending it. It’s a condemnation of judgmental church, and a call for real faith, but what does it leave us holding onto?

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Silver Linings Playbook: Judgment vs. Forgiveness

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

Silver Linings Playbook is the only Oscar movie I had left to watch, and the fact that Jennifer Lawrence (Hunger Games, Winter’s Bone) won an Academy Award only made my anticipation grow. A romantic comedy about a Philadelphia Eagles fan with emotional issues who falteringly enters into a friendship with a recently widowed woman trying to dance her way to peace and happiness? Sounds just like what the doctor ordered in this almost-summer movie season where the films are hot and the DVDs…aren’t. This one has more than you could’ve bargained for!

Bradley Cooper stars as Pat, the angry, bipolar son of a restaurant owner and degenerate gambler, Pat. Sr. (Robert DeNiro). Released from a mental institution after nine months, Pat wants to win back his wife, whose lover he beat within an inch of his life. Instead, he finds himself struggling with his father’s anger issues, gambling problems, and inability to see past how his own superstitions keep everyone in his circle on a razor’s edge. And then, like a cloudy moment on a stormy day, Tiffany (Lawrence) breaks through with her own issues (sex addiction and mourning) to shake up his worldview.

Throughout the film, which mirrors the seasons as an opportunity to show time lapse, Pat struggles to establish who he is without his ex-wife, and to figure out what in his life is worth committing to. He’s not a “stand up” guy initially because even in the midst of chanting “excelsior!” he’s in denial. But Tiffany sees his life clearly, and their ability to share the truth with the other person allows for some slow rolling healing. They can’t heal themselves, but they might be able to help the other become whole.

Throughout the film, people judge Pat and Tiffany. They judge them as crazy, as certifiable, as too broken to be fixed. But the people judging them are broken, too. They just can’t see that their brokenness inhibits them from being whole, that any degree of brokenness is bad, not based on a hierarchy. It’s like we’re living the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector from Luke’s Gospel: “thank God I am not like him.” It doesn’t actually work that way– even if it happens in church all the time.

In a recent Barna study, Christians were found to be more like the Pharisees of the gospels than Jesus himself. They were more inclined to check the box next to things like “People who follow God’s rules are better than those who don’t” or “I like to point out those who do not have the right theology or doctrine.” They were inclined to live out the role of the Pharisee in the parable, living life like someone watching Married with Children and recognizing that their marriage was better. They were living a life in comparison to others rather than recognizing “there but by the grace of God, go I.”

When Pat and Tiffany work toward wholeness, they do so for themselves, not for the healing that others expect of them. They don’t need to be healed for other people, but for themselves. And like the rest of us, they find healing in community, not on their own. They can’t save themselves, just like we can’t make ourselves whole or be saved on our own. Thankfully, Jesus lived the way through for us, and lived a life reminding us that “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

In the end, our couple of misfit lives fit each other, and in the process, they find wholeness.

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Safety Not Guaranteed: Unexpected Time Travel

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

Having won the screenwriting award at the Sundance Festival in 2012, it’s strange that I heard no buzz related to Safety Not Guaranteed, a little indie film about a magazine’s exploration of a man claiming he can time travel. More like Primer than Hot Tub Time Machine, this one proves to be funny, poignant, thought-provoking, and clever, with a cast you’ve seen before, just not like this.

Seattle Magazine writer Jeff Schwensen (Jake Johnson, New Girl) drags two interns, Darius (Aubrey Plaza, Parks and Recreation) and Arnau (Karan Soni), to interview a grocery store clerk, Kenneth (Mark Duplass, The League), who is running a classifieds ad seeking a partner to travel back in time with. Darius works her way into a confidence with Kenneth, while Jeff uses the time to attempt to reconnect with an old flame (Jenica Bergere). Each of the characters is seeking something, but is what they’re looking for what they will find?

The film drags at some places, but it keeps us moving forward enough that we’re intrigued. Kenneth is being followed by someone, but is it because he’s breaking into various research labs or because he knows something about a grand conspiracy? Can Darius find meaning in her relationship with Kenneth or will her duplicitous behavior ultimately undermine her own journey? Can Jeff find true love or are his expectations established on something that can’t last?

Ultimately, the film boils down to a quest for fulfillment. Too often, we seek it in things that don’t exist or can’t fulfill us, in ways that will never satisfy us. It’s like the story of the woman at the well in John 4 who meets Jesus. Jesus tells her that he can offer her water that will keep her from being thirsty ever again, living water to quench her heart’s thirst. She knows that sounds better than any offer she’s heard prior and enters into dialogue with him. The characters here know they’re “thirsty,” and attempt to enter into dialogue, but only real love, only repenting of our broken lives, will ever truly fulfill us.

Posted in Books, Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hashtag Manifesto: Who Am I?

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

While my normal posts revolve around movies, pop culture, or current events related to pop culture and movies, a manifesto of sorts has been coming to mind based on the labeling that has divided the Church for centuries and continues to do so. So, what’s with the hashtags we use to define our posts, ourselves, each other? Do these hashtags actually work?

Let me try some on for size.

#son and #husband- Both are undeniable. Some would say that #father is as well. But I prefer #daddy (some day, maybe #dad).

#friend- Too subjective. Someone else will have to answer that one.

#(political party here)- Unaffiliated so that’s not quantifiable.

#Richmond alum- Spider born and Spider bred.

#Duke fan #Red Sox fan #New England Patriots fan- guilty on all accounts.

So far, pretty harmless. Unless you’re tied to a political party and you’re mad I’m not “with you.” But let’s ratchet it up a notch. How about these?

#Christian- When did this become a “loaded” term? The year 33.1 AD? Sometime later? Did it take a massacre in the name of “Scriptural influence?” It seems to require the “Christians” per se to be in a position of power which seems to be tied to the 4th century. But somewhere along the way, being a Christian became a bad thing; instead of people being “little Christs,” so like Christ that they seemed to be models of him, it is too often “Christians” who act the least like Jesus. I’m with Bono of U2: I prefer Christ-follower. I may not be a “little Christ” thanks to my own shortcomings but I will follow the teachings, example, and leading of Jesus as best I can. Just recognize that I’m not perfect and I’m not always right.

#Protestant I fall into this category as a non-Catholic Christian. But in some ways, the Catholic church’s focus on mission, on healing the broken, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and housing the homeless are more in line with what I read in the gospels about Jesus than some of our Protestant attempts. But we’ll get there, won’t we? We, as Protestants, don’t believe we need someone else to hear our sins or pray for us; we believe in an open dialogue available to all between humanity and God, who hears all prayers.

#United Methodist- I am a United Methodist because of the way that John Wesley understood and explained grace (divided in three parts). Prevenient grace is the movement of God before us, around us, and toward us before we even know that God loves us or wants to know us. Justifying grace is that moment where we repent of our sins, turn toward God, and accept the sacrificial love and forgiveness found in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Sanctifying grace is that grace where we continue to grow to be more like Christ, avoiding sins of commission (what we do) and omission (what we fail to do).

#evangelical- What is an evangelical? The dictionary defines evangelical as “of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels” and “emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.” I agree with those statements, but too often, we evangelicals fail to embrace the power of those statements and instead focus on beating down those who fail to accept what we hold to be true. Sure, I believe I’m supposed to share my faith– I’m writing this blog pretty openly, aren’t I?– but I think Jesus “sought first to understand” and then shared his story, rather than savagely beating someone with a Bible (reference Mandy Moore in Saved).

#pastor #preacher #teacher #reverend- I’m the shepherd to a flock (Blandford UMC) and a preacher of the word. I’m a preacher and teacher of the word through this blog, through HollywoodJesus.com. I’m a reverend because of the credentials provided by the UMC. But at the end of the day, I’m just a guy who Jesus called to follow him, to share my faith, and to help the kingdom of God become a present and future reality.

So tag me all you want. But like Punchinello in Max Lucado’s You Are Special, the only title that fits me fully is this: I am a child of God.

What hashtags do you put on yourself? Which ones do others put on you?

Posted in Pop Culture, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Rob Bell, God, and What He’s Talking About

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

I’m aware that Rob Bell means a lot of things to a lot of Christians. Some Christians see him as a breath of fresh air; some think he’s the sign of the times, that he’s watering down Christianity until religion is just one more thing in the room. I’m definitely sad to note that both of those groups include people who have never read a thing that Bell has written, and only acknowledge someone else’s opinion when referencing Bell.

So, here’s one more opinion about Bell: his writing makes me think.

In his latest book, What We Talk About When We Talk About God, Bell breaks down a study of God in seven words: hum, open, both, with, for, ahead, and so. I’m not going to bore you by going through each chapter and discussing each word, because you should read the book! But I will make these observations about the writings of the theologian known as Rob Bell.

1. Bell attacks being close-minded. He writes “there are other ways of knowing than only those of the intellect” after spending quite a few pages expressing wonder at the way that science has explained much of what we see and experience in the universe (69). A few pages later, he writes that “to be close-minded to anything that does not fit within predetermined and agreed-upon categories is to deny our very real experiences of the world… In our world today, we often hear people talk about being open-minded and about how religion can be stifling because of how close-minded it can be. Now it’s true that religion can lead people to be incredibly close-minded, but the terms open-minded and close-minded aren’t usually applied accurately. To believe that this is all there is and we are simply collections of neurons and atoms–that’s being closed to anything beyond the particular size and scope of reality” (80).

So, Bell is an equal opportunity offender: you can be religious and close-minded, or non-religious and close-minded. But either way, you’re neither tolerant, using all of your senses, or appreciating everything the world has to offer if you can’t acknowledge that not everything in the world fits into “predetermined and agreed-upon categories.” Classic Bell.

2. Bell highlights that God is both with us and for us. I understand this and accept it completely because Jesus was Immanuel, “God with us,” and Jesus was also the one who accepted the burdens of our sins on the cross, dying on our behalf. But Bell’s presentation is necessary in a world that is often told that God is against this or that, that God doesn’t love people if they do or are this or that. That is an extraordinary pronouncement made over and over in the Bible, but one which we can never hear too many times.

2b. “Gospel is the shocking, provocative, revolutionary, subversive, counterintuitive good news that in your moments of despair, failure, sin, weakness, losing, failing, frustration, inability, helplessness, wandering, and falling short, God meets you there– right there– right exactly there–in that place, and announces, I am on your side” (135-6). Enough said, eh?

3. So, we’ve got a) be open-minded, b) recognize that God is for you, and c) that God meets you right here, wherever that is! But Bell is more than willing to clarify where that here is: “Now here’s the twist, the mystery, the unexpected truth about admitting that takes us back to the counterintuitive power of the gospel: when you come to the end of yourself, you are at the exact moment in the kind of place where you can fully experience the God who is for you” (139). So, you’re saying that I have to be broken, out of chances, unable to make it on my own, and willing to submit to a power greater than myself (yes, Bell also calls Alcoholics Anonymous a “no BS zone”) to be able to “get” the gospel? Why, yes, yes I am.

4. And again, as the Bell apologist I am turning into, I will highlight a clearly Christological element of What We Talk About When We Talk About God. “When I talk about God, I’m talking about the Jesus who invites us to embrace our weakness and doubt and anger and whatever other pain and helplessness we’re carrying around, offering it up in all of its mystery, strangeness, pain, and unresolved tension to God, trusting that in the same way that Jesus’ offering of his body and blood brings us new life, this present pain and brokenness can also be turned into something new” (146). So, yes, the Jesus Rob Bell writes about, that I believe in, did something both wonderful and tragic, mysterious and holy, when he died on the cross for my sins. Without it, I’m “stuck” in my sins, condemned to die; with it, I’m saved for an eternal relationship with God.

5. Which leads to an interesting thought about “church.” “You have to construct a temple to teach the idea of holy and sacred, but in doing that you risk that people will incorrectly divide the world up into two realms and distinctions that don’t actually exist. This is why the Jesus story is so massive, progressive, and forward-looking in human history. Jesus comes among us as God in a body, the divine and the human existing in the same place, in his death bringing an end to the idea that God is confined to a temple because the whole world is a temple, the whole earth is holy, holy, holy, as the prophet Isaiah said” (181-2). In this, Bell deconstructs our mythological line between the sacred and the secular, arguing instead that we must recognize that God creates, owns, moves through, and lifts up everything, even the things we don’t like very much.

6. And finally, Bell says that our understanding of this God, our recognition of Jesus, and the way we view church leads us to a place where we have to figure out not just how we view God but how we think we should behave. “So when Jesus calls us to love our neighbor, this is more than just a command or an unethical statement or a rule of life; it’s truth about the very nature of reality. We are deeply connected with everybody around us, and our intentions and words and thoughts and inclinations toward them matter more than we can begin to comprehend” (202). Bell just broke down theological process into steps we could follow, and then he said we needed to love our neighbors if we actually expected to follow Jesus.

Wait, that’s what Jesus said we had to do if we were going to follow Jesus. Maybe this guy is actually onto something.

Posted in Books, Theology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Jack Reacher

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

When I saw Jack Reacher in the theaters, I couldn’t get past all of the things that were wrong with with Tom Cruise. He was too young, too polished, too short to be Reacher, the hero of Lee Child’s series of books about the ex-Army MP who drifts from town to town across America. I was thinking more along the lines of Mark Harmon, with the Army cut, the stern look, the more taciturn behavior. And sure, One Shot, is a good story, but why would you begin the franchise there?

But when the Blu-ray/UV/DVD Combo arrived, and I watched it again, knowing that it would be Cruise as Reacher, knowing that this was where it started… I relented. Sitting back and enjoying the movie, I recognized that Child’s story still shines and that Cruise IS Reacher, and that in addition to the entertainment value, there’s more to see here.

I will warn you that if the Boston Marathon tragedy or Sandy Hook shootings or the DC Sniper make you uncomfortable, then you shouldn’t see this film that begins with a sniper gunning down five people in front of PNC Park in Pittsburgh. In the wake of those tragedies, it’s almost as tough as hearing the real-life sounds from 9/11 played in the opening moments of Zero Dark Thirty. But out of this tragedy rides the heroic Reacher.

We see James Barr (Joseph Sikora) call for Reacher after being arrested for the murders, and find out that Reacher was the MP who went after Barr when he murdered before. We watch as Reacher reluctantly joins forces with D.A. Helen Rodin (Rosemund Pike), after forcing her to examine the lives of the victim to see if she really wants to represent Barr. But juxtaposed with that, we see the machinations of Werner Herzog’s The Zec, whose hired gun (Jai Courtney, A Good Day To Die Hard) is actually the sniper. We know what Reacher is up against (or do we?) before he does.

The film plays out like a whodunit, with Reacher unwinding the coil of string that begins with a gang of locals forcing a fight in the street and the trail to the gun range where Barr trained, run by a former Marine (Robert Duvall). The mystery is engaging, even when you’ve seen it before, but Reacher’s style, humor, violence, chivalry, and substance make it more entertaining than a by-the-numbers deals that we see every night on television.

If you haven’t read any of Child’s works before, then the adaptation of One Shot is an easy intro into who Reacher is. He cares more than you think (making Rodin interview victim’s families). He’s compassionate to those sucked into the vortex of evil (like giving the “bait” Sandy a break and telling her to get out of town). He’s smarter than the average investigator (knowing the serial number of the rifle). And he’s unafraid (basically the whole movie!) But his actions/violence are just. He’s like A-Team in that he represents the innocent (or at least the wronged) but he doesn’t seem keen on killing except in self-defense, making him more reasonable than Hunter. He’s an old school vigilante with a heart of gold.

Back full circle, I’m a fan of the film, and certainly of its protagonist, Jack Reacher. The film is hip, and fun, and exciting, and ultimately, brings justice for the people murdered in the beginning. We all want justice, but finding it without a spirit of vengeance and excessive violence is rare, as we move toward heroes and anti-heroes who shoot first and ask questions later. Jack Reacher is a rare find on Blu-ray/DVD in the middle of spring, and should tide you over nicely until you get to May’s action month!

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Superman Unbound

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

My anticipation of the June release of Man of Steel is pretty well publicized… if you read Hollywood Jesus. After the marketing, social, and mythos snafu that was Brandon Routh’s Superman Returns, it seemed merely a matter of time before Warner Bros. would greenlight a new script, a new Kal-El, a new everything Superman. And six years later, it’s finally (almost) here. But in the meantime, there’s this cool, direct-to-Bluray, animated flick called Superman Unbound that no fan of animated superheroes, Superman, or Geoff Johns is going to want to miss.

Based on Johns’ storyline, Superman: Brainaic, we get a nicely established world where Superman (Matt Bomer’s White Collar-ed voice) has a quiet thing with Lois Lane (Castle’s Stana Katic), and tries to keep his more militant cousin-from-Krypton, Kara (Castle’s Molly Quinn), from decimating all evildoers. But then Brainiac (Fringe’s John Nobles) shows up, Kara knows that this is what doomed Krypton, and Superman has to make some decisions that draw his relationship with Lois into the crosshairs and challenge the relationship he has with the people of Earth.

Marvel may have been setting the box office standard recently with The Avengers and their spin-offs, but DC has the animated superhero world locked down! From Batman: Year One to Superman vs The Elite to Justice League: Doom, DC has been pumping out better-than-average plots, excellent animation, and an ascending level of voice talent. And it seems to come together best here.

I must say that one of the challenges facing Man of Steel is going to be how can they make Superman seem at all vulnerable? He comes across like a Boy Scout, an indestructible Boy Scout, most of the time. Here, he clashes with Kara over the appropriate way to govern Earth, struggles to say the right things and establish the right connection with Lois, continues to examine how much force is right (an Elite issue), and longs to know his world of origin and the traditions he left behind as a baby hurtling through space. All of these make our Superman/Christ figure more real to us– too often the world of Superman makes him “fully God” without making him “fully human” as well.

Brainiac definitely isn’t consistently on my radar as a Superman villain (Lex, Zod, Doomsday, Darkseid usually come to mind first) but Nobles voices him with feeling, and the final showdown on Earth is exquisite. Superman proposes that Brainiac has owned worlds but never known them, as if he had a head knowledge but no heart knowledge (which guides some of Superman’s decisions afterward). It’s a fair challenge to be made about the lives we live, especially when it comes to faith: do we “know” something but not really integrate and live it? Or do we come to establish a real understanding that changes everything we do?

Unbound is spectacular, and fans will appreciate all of the behind-the-scenes stuff, as well as all of the bonus episodes from the Animated Series. 

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iron Man: You Know Who I Am, But Do I?

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

Iron Man 3 was a different kind of superhero movie than we’ve seen before, more akin to Dark Knight Rises than The Avengers, but it was still officially the first sign that summer is upon us. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) returns with his Iron Man suit to battle the terrorist Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), with his love Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) and best friend Rhodey (Don Cheadle) by his side, prepared to risk it all. But is risking it all the same when your battling Chitauri aliens as it is when you’re battling someone who is “in your head”?

The fact that Stark battles a terrorist in this one isn’t the only comparison to DKR. Shane Black’s direction still allows for the ironic humor Jon Favreau established in the series, but we’re peeling back the iron surrounding the man, and ultimately, we’re not sure what we see. Several times, we’re shown or told the phrase, “you know I am in,” but in every case, we don’t actually know the person and the person doesn’t actually have their own self-identity established. Wait, you say, I thought this was the first popcorn movie of the summer?

Especially in light of the Boston Marathon bombings, and curiously in comparison to Kingsley’s A Common Man, this one reaches deeper into the pulse of our world as it also messes with Stark’s mind. When we first see the plot developing, we recognize that what later becomes evil isn’t really evil in its originations. (From a theological perspective, it’s recognizing that often “sin” isn’t sin initially, but it becomes sin when something good is taken to extremes or becomes more important than love, God, etc.) What could’ve been used for good, and which was dismissed glibly, becomes a tool of terror for its own (or money’s) sake. Which actually ties IM3 back to the second installment if you deconstruct IM2’s Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), but revenge was more of an issue there.

But revenge must be taken into account here, because the terrorism we’re faced with in IM3 directly or indirectly stems from bullying that Stark is responsible for. Which begs bigger questions about our world: how much of the evil we see could be prevented by “good” acting preemptively? I’m a strong believer in free will, and some people seem to find evil earlier rather than later (I’ll leave nature vs. nurture for another time), but is the evil of AIM preventable? If Stark listens, if Stark engages, if Stark encourages rather than “creating our own demons,” as he’ll say later, is this brand of terrorism DOA? [Of course, to recognize the evil Stark indirectly creates is to recognize that Stark himself tells the story as a changed man thanks to a little time in an insurgent’s cave.]

This is a summertime, popcorn movie, but it’s also a study in the world we live in, the terrorism of today’s times, and a recognition that bullies create something even as they destroy. Unless of course someone breaks the cycle but acting differently and disengaging the bully pre-creation of the altered persona, or stands up to the bully from a “stronger” position and stops them. What Iron Man does in 2012, could Tony Stark have prevented in 1999?

But Stark has been undergoing more of a transformation than just playboy-to-superhero. He’s struggling with “anxiety” here, which might as well have been labeled PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) after battling the Chitauri (The Avengers). His identity is so shaken because he’s discovered that science doesn’t cover everything, that he can’t fix and control everything with enough money and manipulation of technology. He’s having a mid-life, PTSD, anxiety fit, having just put his own life on the line (with no apparent hope of success) to force the wormhole shut, and then the only people who could possibly understand (the Avengers) have disbanded. He’s on his own with his thoughts, his struggles, and his responsibilities.

Yet, Pepper is always there, and the transition of Stark to Iron Man (via identity and not just the suit) must at least be partially credited to his leading lady. (Some of you are saying, “yes, behind every great man…” and it’s true here, for sure.) But Stark can’t fully be Iron Man until he sees it as more than a costume, in the same way that Spiderman has to figure that out (the kid in IM3 made me think of the backyard scene in Spiderman 2, the Tobey Maguire version). Love is in fact what pushes Stark to fight back, to get over himself, to kick his insecurities to the curb, and to step up as only he can. Loving someone else more than himself, captured briefly with the wormhole, comes busting out at the seams here, and I doubt that they’ll attempt to put it back in the future.

So kudos to Downey, to Black, to the development of a movie that has a heart (not an electromagnetic repulser), a brain (in addressing world issues), and a body of work that is even more spectacular than anything we’ve seen this year, developed in a world all it’s own.

P.S. In a somewhat ironic postscript, my next film outing will mostly likely be to see Star Trek Into Darkness which finds the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise up against a… terrorist. Which begs the question, does life imitate art or art imitate life? Stay tuned…

Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Broken City: Stop Being “Stuck”

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Jacob Sahms

I’ve become a Mark Wahlberg fan, to the point where almost everything he’s in, I have to see. Now, Pain & Gain was an exception, but I ran out to see Broken City in January, and I wanted to see it again when it released on Blu-ray. In this political thriller, Russell Crowe’s Mayor Nicholas Hostetler is the central character, obviously scheming but potentially evil manipulator of authority and individuals, and it’s Crowe who commands our attention throughout. But the players around Hostetler are significant to the story of redemption ground into the story of this city, and the potential dynamic playing out in the life of young Billy Taggart (Wahlberg).

In the opening sequence, we find Taggart standing over the body of a young man, situated in a less-than-savory neighborhood. We’ll later discover that the dead man raped the sister of a woman who becomes Taggart’s wife. In the subsequent trial, Taggart’s boss, Captain Carl Fairbanks (Jeffrey Wright), approaches the mayor, who makes evidence disappear. Taggart is freed but removed from the police force, and seven months later, the mayor hires him to privately investigate the mayor’s wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) for having an affair.

It’s reasonably clear that there’s something “off” about the mayor. We know in our gut that something is going on but we’re not sure what. The film’s procedural process to find the truth is more notable for the decisions that Taggart must make: does he accept the freedom he’s been given from the charges of murder in his past? Or does he pursue justice or truth in a different way, potentially giving up his own freedom in the process? What does it mean for him to be truly “free” and what changes does he need to make if he really wants to “serve and protect?”

Broken City is about all of those “big picture” things: pride, power, privilege, duty, responsibility, restoration, redemption. I was reminded of the story of Chuck Colson, who said that in admitting to obstruction of justice (in not pleading not guilty) that he felt freer in prison than he had felt before, serving under President Richard Nixon. Sometimes, our ability to stand up and face our worst decisions and take responsibility for them, even when it costs us something, frees us up to really be who we want to be in the long run. It’s that facing down our sin, and not letting it “own” us, that allows us to be free. But first, we have to be forgiven.

Forgiveness only comes when someone else is at a place where they can say “I don’t hold this against you anymore.” As a follower of Christ, I claim that forgiveness from God through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Without it, I’m still “stuck,” imprisoned, tied to my mistakes, and the things I’ve done that I can’t undo. But I know that God has forgiven me, and I’m learning to forgive myself. Broken City is about claiming the right life all of the time, even when it’s inconvenient, and even when doing so means giving up our secrets to get there.

Posted in Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment