Super 8 (2011)
Posted by admin in Film Discussions on June 28, 2011
(Prepared by Michael LeFebvre)
“Super 8” is Hollywood’s latest movie about kids growing up in broken circumstances, but learning to overcome the hurt and build joyful lives.
Film Forum Review Artistry 
Spielberg wouldn't attach his name to something that wasn't top-notch, and this film delivers. The writing, the direction, the performances, and the effects all come together in a seamless, enjoyable package. Worldview The film endorses family, fathers, forgiveness, love, and healing. Tough to argue! Overall Average score from both categories.
I. Storyline Review
| Plot Element | Description |
| 1. The Hero | Joe Lamb — Joe is sitting alone on the swing after the death of his mother. He is the boy to whom life has dealt a cruel blow. |
| 2. The Hero’s Goal | Finish Charles’s movie — Joe’s goal is to help Charles accomplish his goal, finishing Charles’s zombie movie. |
| 3. The Adversary | The alien — When strange things start happening, the kids initially think they will have to abandon the movie project. |
| 4. The Hero’s Flaw | No motivation — The film does not highlight Joe’s flaw as strongly as it might have. It is clear, however, that Joe is initially a boy who has lost motivation in life. As a result, he is letting Charles run his life. |
| 5. Self-Revelation | Don’t destroy the model — Charles wants to destroy Joe’s model train for a movie shot. He initially agrees, but Alice tells Joe he shouldn’t let Charles destroy his model. Alice (te love interest) inspires Joe to begin to live for himself again. This begins with Joe deciding not to let Charles destroy the model. With this change, Joe begins to take charge and Charles is following orders. Ultimately, Joe is the one to lead the big rescue operation. |
| 6. The Final Confrontation | In the alien’s lair — Joe’s new heroism is established as he frees Alice and says, “I’m just doing the best I can to save you.” Then, when he is caught by the alien and held up for certain death, Joe declares to the alien the discovery that changed his own outlook on life: “Bad things happen, but you can still live.” Repeated twice, that statement is the thematic “truth” of the movie. Hearing this word of wisdom, the alien lets go of its own bitterness, opens its eyes, and releases Joe to get on with its own escape. |
| 7. The Resolution | Letting go and moving on — In the magnetic field surrounding the launch of the alien’s spaceship, Joe willingly lets go of his mother’s locket and finds Alice holding his hand. He has let go of the bad things that happened, and is moving on with life. |
| Message | “Bad things happen, but you can still live.” |
II. Worldview of the Film
The movie has a refreshingly strong perspective on the family, and on forgiveness. Often, movies like this portray the children as smart and the fathers as dim-witted. In this film, each of the father figures were flawed, but nonetheless men who cared for their families and knew what they were doing. One of the key moments in the film occurs when Alice’s dad was finally able to give Mr. Lamb the apology he tried to deliver months before when Mrs. Lamb had died, and Lamb forgives him, saying, “It was an accident.” The basic worldview of the film is “forgive, forget, restore, and move on.”
III. Biblical Worldview Comparison
It would be nice if overcoming the loss of a loved one was as easy as saying, “It was an accident.” In the movies, reciting truisms like, “Bad things happen, but you can still live,” succeed in bringing profound, inner transformation in the characters that discover them. In real life, however, overcoming bitterness, grief, and disillusionment is not so simple as learning truisms. The movie gets a lot right in its emphasis on the need to forgive, to rebuild, and to move on. But the Scriptures go the next step. The Scriptures teach us that such rebuilding is not easy—and in this lifetime, renewal may never be fully experienced. However, the Bible introduces us to a God who is sovereign, who is wise and good, and who demonstrates his purpose to redeem all the curses of life through the resurrection of Christ from the dead. For as many as are in Christ, his resurrection becomes the assurance that our own scars of death (in all death’s manifestations, emotional as well as physical) will be healed, so we can begin to live out of that confidence of ultimate healing now. Forgiving and moving on is not simply a matter of surrendering to what happened; Christian forgiveness includes the confidence of resurrection renewal.
The Apostle Paul wrote, “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord… that I may know him and the power of his resurrection… Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 3:8-14, ESV)
<hr>
Added by Kevin Swan:
Since Michael covered the basic story and worldveiw messages, I’ll touch on some of the film’s artistry.
I’ve had a topsy-turvy opinion of JJ Abrams as a filmmaker.
Sometimes, he’s stereotypically bad, as in Armageddon, which he wrote, and produced. Granted, Michael Bay directed, and that’s probably some of the problem, but still… I thought Lost was really interesting for the first season, then I wanted to beat the crap out of everyone involved in the writing and directing of the show. Bad storytelling. Cloverfield was interesting, but not terribly compelling or engaging character development (and I felt sick from all the motion in the hand-held video). He pulled the Mission Impossible series out of a horrific nose-dive with MI III, which was actually a coherent film, unlike it’s predecessors. His direction of the Star Trek reboot was flawless, and covered a multitude of past sins for me.
And then he comes up with something like Super 8, which I adored.
Part of me wonders how much influence Spielberg had on the story. I mean, it’s so “E.T.” for our modern generation. But Abrams is listed as the writer, so I have to give him the proper respect. The story is the compelling attraction for this movie—not the effects. The alien is simply the outside catalyst for the hero’s transformation. His fatal flaw is is lack of motivation, he faces it, overcomes, and matures. First love is a great motivator to become a different person.
I normally hate kids in movies, and there were times I hated the 2 comic relief kids, but the lead character and his love interest were completely believable in their roles. Major kudos to both the young actors and Abrams for being able to capture their performances so wonderfully.
The special effects, while great, are second fiddle to the story… and for a blockbuster-type film, that’s a welcome change of pace. I’m happy for Abrams; he found a way to combine all his loves: mystery, aliens, destruction, and a story with a lot of guts.
You will not be disappointed in this film. There’s something for everyone to enjoy. My wife, who had to be lied to so she’d go see it, loved it (she hates scary movies and won’t see them any more). It’s pro-family, pro-father (which is sadly rare in modern culture), and pro-forgiveness—all things I can get behind.
Way to go, JJ!
The King’s Speech (2011)
Posted by admin in Film Discussions on February 4, 2011
Prepared by Michael LeFebvre (1/27/2011)
Friendship is one of the classic themes of great epics, and this film is another addition to the library of friendship stories. Critics have pointed out numerous liberties which the filmmakers have taken with the historical accuracy of the film, and other reviews will explore those. But those historical liberties which were taken, were taken in order to enhance the film’s message about friendship and its redemptive qualities. The movie is not perfect, but it is definitely encouraging and worthwhile viewing.
Film Forum Review Artistry The photography is beautiful, the acting is excellent, the story is well told, and all this is done without any computer graphics, special effects, violent sequences, or sexual encounters to hold attention. The story is compelling enough to keep attention without resort to secondary attention grabbers. That’s always a mark of a well-made film in my book. It is unfortunate that so much profanity was included in the film, especially since the real Lyle Logue never used profanity as a speech therapy method as suggested in the film (at least according to his grandson’s statements in some reviews I’ve read). But otherwise, the film is well done. Worldview 
The depiction of friendship and its redemptive qualities is excellent. I’m only giving four stars because of the (sadly, typical) denigration of the Christian faith as offering any serious contribution to the healing of the soul. Such a worldview flaw should probably call for more stars knocked off than just one, but I’m willing to give four in light of the strength of what is presented in the film about human friendship. Overall 
Average score from both categories.
I. Storyline Review
| Plot Element | Description |
| 1. The Hero | Albert — The movie is about the historical Prince Albert, but he is presented as a representative of the modern child who grows up unloved by his father, teasted by the other kids, and friendless. |
| 2. The Hero’s Goal | To find his own voice — Albert’s goal is to speak. But he often gives up and assumes he never will. It is actually Elizabeth’s persistence that helps him to keep coming back to the impossible seeming goal.
(Early in the movie, we see Albert stuffing marbles in his mouth with a speech doctor, and giving up in frustration declaring “no more!” In the very next frame, Elizabeth is trying to figure out the elevator in a run down apartment building as she ventures out to find another doctor for Albert. One of the subplots of the movie is the need we sometimes have for someone close to us to keep pressing us toward the goal we ourselves are apt to give up on too easily.) Initially, Albert would prefer to hide behind David’s shadow. But when it becomes obvious Albert will be king, he realizes he will have to find his voice. The whole idea of “finding his voice” is a metaphor for Albert’s becoming his own man and finding himself. As Lyle states in one of the key dialogs of the film during a session in his clinic, “He [Albert’s father] isn’t here anymore. You don’t have to carry him around, or your brother. You don’t need to be afraid of the things that happened when you were five. You’re your own man.” |
| 3. The Adversary | His Stuttering — Albert has various human antagonists in the film. His father King George, his brother David, and Wallace all fill certain roles hindering Albert from finding his voice. Toward the end of the film, Adolph Hitler will become an adversary to overcome. But ultimately, it is Albert’s stuttering itself that the film seems to put in the forefront as his great adversary.
But Albert and Elizabeth’s initial interview with Lyle reveals a fatal flaw in their understanding of this adversary. “It’s only mechanical,” they insist. Lyle keeps insisting that the Prince must go by “Bertie” and open up his personal life to Lyle if he is going to help him (“We’re all equals in here,” Lyle says on receiving Albert for the first time). But Albert and Elizabeth insist that the stuttering is merely a mechanical problem which Lyle should treat with therapies, and nothing more. Initially, Lyle cooperates—until Albert describes to Lyle his confrontation with David when he completely lost his voice… |
| 4. The Hero’s Flaw | Fear — Lyle knows that Albert’s real contest is not with his speech, but with his fear.
In an interview in his clinic (while dabbling with the model airplane on the table), Lyle draws out of Albert the story of his childhood. Albert shares how his father used to shame him, how he was afraid of his father, how his father forced Albert to be right handed instead of left, put painful splints on him to correct his knees; Albert shared how his brother and peers mocked him with his father’s endorsement; he shared how his nanny used to pinch him and not feed him; he shared how he was close to his epileptic brother Johnny who died at age 13. Lyle shows compassion for Albert and Albert thanks him. Lyle answers, “What are friends for?” to which Albert responds, “I wouldn’t know.” This long recitation of childhood scars is meant to offer something we in the audience can identify with in thinking about our own scars and resulting sense of isolation and our fears. It is also the interview that sets the backdrop for Albert’s confrontation with David, which takes place in the next sequence. After that interview, we understand why Albert is timid and freezes up before David in their confrontation at David’s party. At the party, we are persuaded David is emotionally bound to Wallace and will marry her, we see that David is a Hitler sympathizer, and we learn that Winston Churchhill (symbolizing parliament) is not going to allow David to wear the crown if he marries Wallace. But everything comes to a head with Albert confronting David, but he freezes up and totally loses his voice and cannot finally answer David’s angry tirade. David taunts Albert, calling him “B-B-B-Bertie,” before walking away in disgust. The next sequence takes us back to Lyle’s clinic, where Lyle finally confronts Albert with his real flaw: his fear. “What is it about David that makes you stammer?” he asks. Then, on their walk through the park, Lyle grows overbold and urges Albert to man up and take the chance to become king. Albert is angered and tells Lyle that their relationship is over. It is Lyle’s wife who later helps Lyle realize that he went about it the wrong way: he was right to push his patient to find himself, but he was wrong to push his patient to seek greatness. Lyle tries to apologize for this, but is not able to get through to Albert. For a period of time, we are left wondering if Albert is going to realize what Lyle was trying to help him realize about his real flaw, or if Albert will fail to overcome his flaw and end in tragedy. |
| 5. Self-Revelation | At his coronation — When David abdicates and Albert is going to have to assume the throne (and make speeches), he goes back to Lyle. “I understand what you were trying to say,” he tells Lyle. Then they go to Westminster Abbey to rehearse for the coronation, Albert insists to the Archbishop that Lyle is “family” and should sit in the king’s box at the ceremony. That evening, the Archbishop reveals to Albert that Lyle has no qualifications for speech therapy, and the moment of truth comes.
Albert and Lyle have a major argument in Westminster Abbey, during which Lyle acknowledges that he has no professional qualifications: “I have experience, not credentials,” he says. Here is where Lyle explains what Albert needs to discover. Lyle explains his work with Australian soldiers who lost their voice after the war, and Lyle began to try to help them. He realized that he had to “go deeper” into the hearts and hurts of the soldiers in order to befriend them, to “give them faith in their own voice,” and to “let them know that a friend is listening.” In other words, what these men needed was not medical treatment, but friendship. And Lyle’s whole method boils down to being a good friend. What began as a conflict ends with Albert realizing that Lyle is indeed a friend, and what he needs. He refuses the Archbishop’s proposed replacement for Lyle and retains him. |
| 6. The Final Confrontation | War Speech — After the coronation service, the Archbishop of Canterbury shows the royal family the edited film short of the crowning. Incidentally, that short is followed by a news film about Adolph Hitler. When young Princess Elizabeth asks, “What is he saying, Daddy?” Albert answers, “I don’t know, but he is obviously saying it rather well.” In other words, Albert is now face to face with his great adversary, Hitler, and sees what a fluent speaker Hitler is.
Albert is going to have to compete against Hitler’s eloquence with the speeches he will make to his own people. This brings us to the final confrontation, when Albert must confront his stuttering and make his first wartime speech to rally the British and Commonwealth peoples. There are many significant references in the lengthy buildup to Albert’s speech (including Winston Churchhill’s remark to the king that he, too, had a speech impediment he overcame by believing in himself. But the key moment is when Albert enters the broadcast studio and is alone in the room with Lyle. Lyle stands on the other side of the microphone from Albert, facing him, and tells the king, “Forget everything else and just say it to me, as a friend.” Albert does so, and begins to speak to his friend. Meanwhile, the camera shows the listening faces of Albert’s subjects all across the land. The pictures flash before us of young and old faces, all deeply intent and clearly moved by Albert’s speech. It is a series of faces presented as a direct contrast to the faces we saw during Albert’s first speech at the beginning of the movie. At that time, a similar series of images had showed the discomfort, embarrassment, and shame of the people listening; but now, everything is different. The king has found his confidence in himself, because he has found a friend. The final line of Albert’s speech is recited with rich double meaning. His concluding line, spoken with great confidence, is, “We shall prevail.” Of course, in the speech this is said in reference to the war effort against Hitler. But within the movie, it is meant as a reference to Albert’s own victory. |
| 7. The Resolution | Standing behind the king, out of view — After the speech is over, Lyle says to the king, “Well done, my friend.” Albert answers (notably using his friend’s first name), “Thank you, Lyle.” The movie the resolves with Albert’s staff all congratulating him on his speech, the king posing for the press photo, and then the royal family stepping out onto the balcony to wave to the cheering crowds below. While the king and his family stand out on the balcony before the throngs, Lyle walks up and stands behind them out of view of the crowds, but there standing behind the king, and he smile. It is a closing image that captures the idea of a “behind the scenes” friend. The closing verbage splashed across the screen gives tribute to this friendship, saying at last that “Lyle and Bertie remained friends for the rest of their lives.” |
| Message | To find yourself, you need a friend. Indeed, even a king needs a friend and cannot really find himself unless he first finds friendship in another. |
II. Worldview of the Film
This is the latest in a long line of films communicating the same basic message from the same basic worldview. It is another film aimed at men, women, and youth who grew up with broken or dysfunctional families. And it champions the need for someone to befriend such hurting souls in order to help them believe in themselves and their worth again, thereby bringing out the best in them.
There is certainly much that is good in such an outlook, especially in the encouragement of friendships as a powerful and shaping need for everyone. If only the healing of deep wounds and the resolving of the impact of years of neglect or outright abuse were truly that simple to heal with a friendship. I would commend the film’s commendation and presentation of friendship as a profoundly important and healing force, but the film does not go far enough to offer a truly robust picture of how devestating hurts and bitterness can be, and how much more than “a good friend who believes in you” is needed. But this is just a short movie about friendship, so perhaps it would be easy to overlook the absence of attention to broader and deeper issues of inner healing. However, there is one reason I am not sure we should let the filmmakers off that easily.
The film was more than just silent about a man’s need for more than just a good friend. It actually included a clearly intentional series of subtle jibes at any idea that God and religion could offer any real help. For example, during Albert’s nervous preparations before his final great speech, he tells Lyle that he keep pausing when he stutters and reciting in his mind the phrase, “God save the king! But,” he goes on, “apparently no one is listening.” A little earlier in the film, when Albert and Lyle arrive at Westminster Abbey to practice, the Archbishop asks to lead Albert through the rehearsal. Lyle insists that he will be the one to rehearse with Albert and that privately. When the Archbishop balks insisting that it is the church’s duty to prepare the ceremony, Lyle responds, “My preparation is equally important,” and secures private use of the Abbey that night.
Also, throughout the film the Archbishop of Canterbury is portrayed as a crusty, cold, manipulating individual, in a way that shows us religion is actually a hinderance to Albert’s needed “faith in himself” and no help at all.
In other words, the film presents a wonderful picture of friendship and its redemptive qualities, which we can heartily endorse. But the film not only ignores the crucial place of a man’s finding his ultimate redemption through a relationship with God, the film subtly but deliberately mocks such an idea. This is unfortunate and sad to see.
III. Biblical Worldview Comparison
There are many Scriptures commending friendship in ways that are harmonious with this film. But what this film lacks is the perspective of Scriptures like Psalm 25, which reads in part: “Who is the man who fears the Lord? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose. His soul shall abide in well-being, and his offspring shall inherit the land. The friendship of the Lord is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant” (Psa. 25:12-14, ESV). It is only in the friendship of the Lord and his covenant mercies that a person can find forgiveness for his own sins, and therein the grace to forgive others their sins. Furthermore, it is in the friendship of the Lord that a person finds the undeserved but gracious esteem that brings peace and confidence no mere human friendship can provide. Friendships with other people are extremely important, but the friendship of the Lord is vital.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Posted by admin in Film Discussions on December 24, 2010
Prepared by Michael LeFebvre (12/17/2010)
The third installment in the Chronicles of Narnia franchise is out, and there are plenty of reviews out there which will provide better insight into its success (or failure) as a film. At the Film Forum, however, we are particularly interested in the message which the movie presents. That will be the focus of my review, below.
| Film Forum Review | |
|---|---|
| Artistry | |
| On the artistry front, I’d give the movie three stars (out of five). It lives up to the special effects and fantasy images of the Narnia series. But there are points of the story which are clearly supposed to be compelling but fall flat. For example, when Edmund discovers the pool that turns everything to gold and he turns greedy, leading to a near duel with Caspian, the whole sequence comes across rather wooden and unconvincing. Overall, one never really feels the inner turmoil along with the movie’s characters. We seem them struggling, and understand that they are struggling, but the movie never really seems to give us a taste of what they are feeling. For such reasons, I think the movie falls short of the kind of storytelling power that garners 4 or 5 stars. But its visualizations and acting, otherwise, are good fun and quite entertaining. | |
| Worldview | |
| The worldview of the movie seems to borrow more from pop culture than from the original C. S. Lewis books or from Scripture. I guess that’s what we should expect from a movie aimed at broad appeal, but at least we might continue to hope for more. | |
| Overall | |
|---|---|
| Average score from both categories. | |
I. Storyline Review
| Plot Element | Description |
| 1. The Heros | Eustace Scrubbs, Edmund Pevensie, Lucy Pevensie — The film is part of the “coming of age” Narnia adventures, with this episode focusing on the final “coming of age” experiences of Edmund and Lucy and the beginning of Eustace’s Narnian lessons on “growing up.” Additionally, a fourth character—Caspian the young Narnian king—also follows a similar character arc as his three English companions. |
| 2. The Heroes’ Goals | To Be “Grown Up” — Each of the children want to prove themselves and to be “grown up”:
• Eustace wants to prove himself through his mastery of information and logic, marginalizing childish “myths” and “imaginations.” • Edmund is tired of playing “second fiddle” (to Peter, in the past; to Caspian, in this film), and wants to be under no one’s authority, because “I deserve to rule.” • Lucy wants to be beautiful (and adult) like her older sister Susan. • Caspian wants to live up to his dead father’s expectations of him by being in charge. The angst in each character’s heart is introduced at the start of the film. First, we see Edmund trying to pass himself off as an adult to enlist in the war. Then, we find Lucy brushing her hair behind her ear while looking longingly at the soldier sweet-talking his girl. Finally, we meet Eustace mocking his cousins for their reading fables rather than “useful books” about facts, like he reads. Perhaps Lucy’s early comment to Edmund, that, “We don’t matter as much [as Peter and Susan],” captures the inner angst of children longing to be significant which underlies this film. |
| 3. The Adversary | Dark Island — The adversary is the mystical power of Dark Island, which sends its green mist out into Narnian lands and seas with increasing power. We are told that the island is “pure evil.” More specifically, we learn as the movie progresses that the island’s mist is actually temptation, which devours sacrifices and stirs up fears in children’s (and adults’) minds. By preying off a person’s worst fears, temptation tries to seduce the person into losing faith in oneself for who he is. Thus, the ultimate danger caused by this “pure evil” is to bring a person, through fear, to lose faith in himself.
The movie gives us a demonstration of what happens when one gives in to temptation when Lucy recites the incantation to become “beautiful Susan.” Once she becomes Susan in her dream, she is horrified to learn that now Lucy never existed and as a result of Lucy’s non-existence in this dreamy, alternate reality, the Pevensie children never came to Narnia at all, since it was only through Lucy’s faith that the wardrobe was opened to all four. Aslan appears to Lucy in her alternate reality, chastising her for allowing her fear of insignificance to lead her to surrender to the temptation to pursue someone else’s standard of beauty rather than being herself. Lucy essentially repents to Aslan and throws the incantation into the fire. But her surrender (symbolized by the burning incantation sheet) unleashed temptation upon her comrades on the ship. Thus, temptation also begins for the others: Edmund’s temptation is to rebel and follow the “white witch” (in his mind) to become great; Caspian’s fear is that he won’t live up to his father’s expectations. |
| 4. The Heroes’ Flaws | Fear (esp., fear of insignificance) — While explaining Dark Island to the children, and the need to be strong in the temptations they will face, Coriakin the magician told the children, “To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness within.” In other words, Dark Island is not really the place from which “pure evil” preys upon people; it is the fear in our own hearts that makes us vulnerable to temptation. Indeed, it is the children’s own fears that makes them vulnerable to temptation. Each of the three will have to face their own fears, and resist the resulting temptation, in order to “grow up” into true maturity. |
| 5. Self-Revelation | On volcano island — It seems that each of the children come to a point of epiphany on the way to, or at, the barren volcanic island where they stopped after Coriakin’s island. It is in the storm, on the way there, that Lucy gives in to her temptation, pursuing after beauty. Aslan brings her to understand that she must be herself. “What have you done?” he asked Lucy, “You doubt your value. Don’t run from who you are.”
It is on the island that Eustace abandons the group and seizes the dragon’s treasure trove, soon after discovering that he himself is a dragon. I suspect the transformation of Eustace into a dragon is meant, not so much to present a change in Eustace, as to suggest Eustace coming face-to-face with who he really is—not the hotshot he thought he was, but the firebreathing dragon he really is. Eustace’s tears that first night show his self-realization (and humbling). When, in a subsequent scene, Eustace-the-dragon saves the ship from the doldrums by pulling it, the movie is showing us how Eustace is learning to use his dragon strength to help his friends rather than burn and attack them. Caspian and Edmund both face their own insecurities beside the “midas touch” pool on the volcanic island. There, Caspian’s longing to assert his kingship and Edmund’s rebellion against “being second fiddle” to anyone square off in a near duel. Lucy provides the voice of conscience, drawing both boys to realize what is happening—that they are giving in to temptation. Shamed, they lower their weapons and depart as friends again. |
| 6. The Final Confrontation | Facing the Serpent at Dark Island — The final confrontation will take place in the heart of the cove within Dark Island. We are prepared for the frey with the captain’s speech to the crew about being strong and courageous, and not surrending to fear and temptation. We also see that each of the children are ready for the battle.
Lucy is in a room with Gael during the journey toward Dark Island. There, Gael tells her, “When I grow up, I want to be just like you,” to which Lucy answers, “When you grow up, you should be just like you.” Lucy has learned her lesson. Edmund and Caspian share fraternal words, each saying to the other, “I think of you as my brother” (i.e., no superiority or rivalry, but peer brotherhood), and Caspian gives Edmund King Peter’s sword. Meanwhile, Eustace flies toward the Dark Island with Reepicheep on his horns, reassuring him, “I am a mouse and you are a dragon, let’s go meet our destiny!” Thus, the ready adventurers—all four knowing their rightful strength—enter the cove of Dark Island to face their fears and temptations. After picking up the seventh lord from the cove of Dark Island, the children are warned not to give place in their minds to their fears, for in this place those fears become real. “Uh oh,” says Edmund, looking over the side of the ship. All along the way, Edmund had been mocking the superstitious ideas of the ship’s crew who feared sea serpents; now we learn that the reason Edmund mocked their fears is because this is actually one of his own hidden fears. The great battle with the Sea Serpent comes to represent the ultimate battle with those fears that are so hard to kill and which leave us vulnerable to temptations. The central metaphor of the battle is Edmund standing alone on the top of the mast, facing the serpent (his fear) on one side and the vision of the White Witch, Jordis (his temptation), on the other side. The central insight of the battle is when Caspian manages to cut one of the tentacles off the serpent, and it immediately vanishes into mist on the ship’s deck. With new clarity and confidence, Caspian announces to Edmund, “We can beat this thing!” In other words, fear looks frightful, but it is just an illusion. Once we know that, we can overcome it. All through the battle, there are numerous instances of one child coming to the rescue of another, saving each another in ways that show us their need of each other. There is also a poignant cry to Aslan, “Aslan, help us,” at one point. Ultimately, the whole crew must together ram the serpent against the rocks to kill it. And in the end, it will be Eustace (the weakest of the children) who will have to carry the magic sword to Aslan’s table in order to break the spell. What is so significant is that, after each of the other children have faced their fears and temptations and won, we lastly encounter Eustace-the-dragon on the quiet shores of Ramandu’s island. There, he faces Aslan and Aslan tears the dragon scales off of him. As Eustace later describes it, “It sort of hurt, but it was a good pain.” Once Eustace loses his hard-skinned dragon scales, he falls back to the ground a child and cries with delight, “I’m a boy again!” Eustace has conquered his inner dragon and found the joy of simply being a boy. It is as a boy then (and not a mighty dragon) that he fends off the green mist and powerfully places the seventh sword to unleash the magic and break the spell of Dark Island. |
| 7. The Resolution | On the shores of Aslan’s Land — The speeches on the coast of Aslan’s island summarize the lessons each of the children have learned.
• It is there that Eustace explains how “it hurt, but it was a good pain” when Aslan removed his dragon scales. • It is there that Caspian contemplates going through the veil of water to see his father, but realizes he can no longer live in the shadow of his father, promising to go back to Narnia to be himself: “I promise to be a better king.” (“You already are,” Aslan tells him.) • It is there on the shore that Edmund declares, “It’s time to go home. Our family needs us.” No longer the rebel, afraid of being a lesser member of the family, Edmund has matured and desires to serve his family. • It is on that coast that Lucy hugs Aslan, realizing they will not be coming back to Narnia. But she is reassured that Aslan will always be watching them in their own world. “In your world, I am known by another name, and you must know me by that name. I brought you hear for a little while, that you might know me better there.” In other words, the children’s fantasies of C.S. Lewis are to help children think in Gospel themes, but now that they have come of age, a child like Lucy must know the real Jesus through the true stories and events of the Scriptures. • As for Eustace, his victory is in his abandoning his “adultish logic” and embracing “childlike faith.” And he, Aslan says, will come back again. Eustace ahs not yet “come of age.” But he has become a willing boy, and childhood is an important part of growing up which cannot be skipped. It is only the mouse, Reepicheep, who crosses over into Aslan’s country. His course is complete, his life is over, and he is eager to see heaven. To him, Aslan says, “My country was made for noble hearts like yours, however small.” Back in England, the cousins are now friends. And Eustace’s mother yells up the stairs to him that “Jill Pole” is here to see him—thus suggesting the next sequel with Eustace and Jill and their trek to Narnia. (Is that the Silver Chair?) |
| Message | Maturity is not about achieving adult status (e.g., beauty or power). Maturity is about conquering my inner insecurities (“your worst nightmares”) that feed my strongest temptations (“your darkest wishes”). |
II. Worldview of the Film
The movie, like the book, is an allegory of the Christian life. Or so it is intended. But it seems to me that the underlying worldview of this movie is actually more Freudian than biblical. According to the movie, it is the hidden, suppressed fears of childhood insecurity that make us vulnerable to temptation. If we face our hidden inner fears and overcome them, temptation loses its grip and “pure evil” has no more power. It is certainly true that our fears can contribute to our temptations. But the film seems to present insecurity as the source of our rebellion and temptation. Indeed, the primary role Aslan plays in the movie is to help the children believe in themselves for who they are, freeing them from the fear-fraught illusions of who they think they need to become.
This reminds me of a troubling doctrine coming out of the Emerging Church movement. It has become popular among some of the leaders of that movement to reinterpret the story of Peter’s walking on the water. The true lesson (it is said) of that account is not that Peter needs to believe in Jesus, but that Peter come to realize that Jesus believes in him. This is a brand of Christianity which is quite popular today, and it seems to be the view of Christ which has influenced the producers of this movie. Which is too bad.
Children (and adults) do need to discover their God-given gifts and to overcome their insecurities and fears. But conquering “pure evil” and temptation is not achieved by overcoming insecurities. And Jesus is not like the Aslan in this movie, simply helping individuals to believe in themselves. He is not a coach helping us to redeem ourselves. We need the Christ of the cross and resurrection, who fights for us and redeems us from our inner sinfulness (not just our inner fears) by his grace and power.
III. Biblical Worldview Comparison
The passage of Scripture that comes to mind, while watching this movie, is from Paul’s second epistle to Timothy. There, Paul writes to the young “warrior” Timothy, saying, “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. (2 Timothy 1:5–7).
Here, Paul does speak about the importance of a youth like Timothy overcoming his fears. But that is not the root issue. Instead, the source of Timothy’s power is the faith in Jesus Christ (rather than faith in self) which he learned from his grandmother and his mother. The Dawn Treader movie does a good job of contrasting the spirit of fear, on the one hand, with the spirit of power and love and self-control, on the other. The movie gets that contrast right. But according to Paul, the underlying issue is one of rightly placed faith: faith in Christ. Granted, the movie acknowledged the children’s need of Aslan, but as I noted earlier, Aslan’s greatest role in this film was to help the children believe in themselves. That is not the kind of faith Paul writes about. Scripture calls us to come to the end of ourselves, that we might be renewed in Christ through continuing repentance for sin (not just rejection of fears) and faith in him.
The Social Network (2010)
Posted by admin in Film Discussions on October 7, 2010
Prepared by Michael LeFebvre (10/06/2010)
This is a movie about friendship. And it is a movie about loneliness. And it uses Facebook as a metaphor for its story. There are three points which make this movie one of the most relevant I’ve seen in a long time, and sure to connect with nearly every viewer. It is definitely worth seeing.
I don’t know much about Mark Zuckerberg, and I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate this movie actually is. There are a lot of claims of excessive fictionalizing that I’ve noted. And I don’t doubt that a number of liberties were taken. But I don’t think this movie was really written to tell us about the story of Facebook’s founding. That is just the framework on which the real message of the movie is hung. The real message of the movie is about you and me as Facebook users. The Mark Zuckerberg character is presented as a picture of what happens to anyone who moves his entire social life online. So in my review, I’m not concerned with the real history of Facebook, only with what this retelling of that history (with whatever fictional liberties were taken) says to us about ourselves.
| Film Forum Review | |
|---|---|
| Artistry | |
| This was a very hard film to make interesting and compelling. The plot is actually fairly simple, and could have easily become a dull movie. But there was just enough variation between present depositions and flashbacks to the events being tried to keep the film moving. In terms of its storytelling, the film was skillfully done. | |
| Worldview | |
| It has been a long time since I’ve seen a movie I’ve felt so little need to critique! Of course, the film has many gaps in its worldview (so it gets four, but not quite five stars). However, the film is really only focused on one very narrow facet of life: friendships. And its worldview of friendships is refreshing. | |
| Overall | |
|---|---|
| Average score from both categories. | |
I. Storyline Review
| Plot Element | Description |
| 1. The Hero | Mark Zuckerberg—The movie is not so much about the real person, Mark Zuckerberg. It is using Mark as a representative for the stereotype Facebook user. Mark is building his social life through Facebook, and in the movie Mark becomes a model for anyone who is trying to build his or her social life through the internet. |
| 2. The Hero’s Goal | Relationships—Mark wants relationships. More specifically, he wants two kinds of relationship: (1) he wants to be accepted into an exclusive social circle, and (2) he wants a girlfriend. He thinks that the way to achieve both is a matter of establishing a cool, public image. |
| 3. The Adversary | The Winkelvoss Twins—The plot of the film is driven by the series of suits the Twins pressed against Mark (with Eduardo’s suit also added in). However, the contrast is about much more than the lawsuit. The lawsuit is just a metaphor for the real contest behind the film—the contest between “old world” and “new world” ideals of what it means to be social.
Cameron and Tyler are the “old world” foil to Mark’s “new world” approach to socialization. Mark is a nerdy genius who is proficient at his laptop; Cameron and Tyler are athletic rowers. Mark has no scruples about how he treats his own friends; the Twins are “Harvard gentlemen” in how they treat their enemy. Mark is quick to blog open and cutting remarks about his ex-girlfriend; the Twins are slow and hesitant to bring suit against Mark. |
| 4. The Hero’s Flaw | He does not value true friendships—The film begins with Mark losing his girlfriend Erica. She tells him, “You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true: It’ll be because you’re an a******.” The film ends with the legal associate telling Mark, “You’re not an a****** Mark, you’re just trying so hard to be one.” (More on that closing remark, later.)
In the middle of the film, a betrayed Eduardo looks with pain all over his face at Mark, and says, “I was your only friend. Your one friend.” Eduardo had sacrificed immensely for Mark. Eduardo had once remarked, “Mark doesn’t care about money, but he needs to be protected”—and Eduardo tried to provide that protection. But Mark was always envious that Eduardo got accepted into the Phoenix club. Mark was wowed by the “image” Sean Parker had created, and fell for image over substance. Mark failed to value true friendship. |
| 5. Self-Revelation | Facebook 1,000,000 night—On the same night Facebook reaches the 1,000,000 friends threshold, two things happen that confront Mark with his error.
First of all, he loses his friendship with Eduardo. After Eduardo arrives and finds his stock has been diluted to virtually nothing, he confronts Mark about it. Mark shrugs it off as a poor business decision by Eduardo, and lets Sean run him out of the office. It is Sean (the guy with an “image”) rather than Eduardo (the friend with “substance”) whom Mark values. But the second thing that happens that night, is that Sean’s shallowness and liability to Mark is exposed. When police raid his party and catch Sean doing drugs with underage interns, Mark realizes Sean is a liability. “This will be all over the news tomorrow,” Mark tells Sean on the phone. Sean assures Mark everything will be fine, “won’t it?” But Mark doesn’t answer. Just as Mark’s program has hit the big threshhold and he has 1,000,000 Facebook friends, he has lost his one true friend and discovered the emptiness of his “Facebook friend” who is all image and no substance. However, Mark does not learn from this experience. Instead of recognizing his flaw and changing, Mark remains unchanged. In other words, this movie will be a tragedy with a sad ending, rather than a redemption story with a happy ending. |
| 6. The Final Confrontation | Last day around the table—At the end of the movie, the lawyers all leave the table and the legal associate remains behind to tell Mark what will happen the next day. A negotiated settlement will be drawn up, and Mark will sign it. Because if this case goes to court before a jury of real people studying the faces and mannerisms of Mark as a real person, he will never win. In other words, before the jury of real humanity, the Facebook-Image Guy is a social loser. And it’s not that he is inherently an “a******,” but his preoccupation with building his Facebook image at the expense of real friendships boils down to his “trying so hard to be one.”
The emerging moral of the story: no one is doomed to be a jerk lacking friends, but expecting to build friendships through an online social network will turn you into a jerk with no friends. |
| 7. The Resolution | Closing scene—The last scene is the tragic resolution of the film. Mark is sitting alone in the board room with his laptop. He has selected Erica Albright’s Facebook page and sent her a friend request. He sits there and repeatedly clicks the refresh button hoping to see her accept his friend request. He is alone, and miserable, and she is not responding. Meanwhile, the text on the screen tells us the outcome of various parties to the lawsuits. Then the final paragraph shows on the screen with lonely, miserable Mark: “Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world.” It is a fulfillment of Erica’s prediction in the opening scene of the movie (that Mark would be wealthy but would never have a real girlfriend, not because he’s a geek, but because he’s a jerk). |
| Message | Facebook friends are not true friends—This is a movie about friendships true or virtual. It is sown with many metaphors and subplots pointing to this same message.
Take, for example, Eduardo’s girlfriend whom he met because of Facebook. She came on hot, but turned out to be a violent control freak and he was scared of her. A Facebook image covers what a person is really like. In contrast, consider Erica Albright. On the same night Eduardo and Mark meet with the two girls they met through Facebook, Mark spots Erica at the restaurant. He approaches her and asks to talk, but Erica refuses. She says, “I don’t want to leave my friends” (referring to the people sitting around her at the meal). One of the guys at that table asks Erica if Mark is bothering her, and implies his readiness to stand up to defend her. At the end of the exchange, Erica turns back to her friends and tells Mark to go back to his “video games.” Erica understands how to foster real friendships; Mark’s friendships are just “video games.” In another scene, during one of his depositions, Mark mockingly boasts that he is rich enough he could buy the Phoenix Club and turn it into his pool room (or something like that). The irony is, he could buy it, but he could never get into it. He blew his one chance when, instead of honoring his agreement to work with the Winkelvoss Twins (members of the club) he crossed them and created his own social network. There are also warnings about the dangers of blogging. Mark mocks Erica on his blog in drunken anger on the night she dumped him, and for the rest of the movie that offense continually haunts him. He can never undo it. At one point, another character in the film refers to Mark’s blog statement and says, “It’s written in ink, Mark.” In other words, what online socializing puts online becomes permanent and its damage can never be undone. Through all manner of subplots and side statements, the whole movie is offering a barrage of critiques about taking your social life online. |
II. Worldview of the Film
I am not read up enough on the various philosophical theories of friendship to identify the right philosophy to pin on this movie. But this movie is definitely written with a definitive philosophy of what a friendship is, and what it is not, in view.
A key word used often in the film is “image.” Mark’s “FaceMash” game soiled his image, yet at the same time accomplished his goal in giving him stature and establishing his image. He introduces Facebook (as the Winkelvoss brothers read in the paper) in order to redeem his image. The film begins with Mark telling Erica of his need to get attention with something big. Mark’s philosophy of friendship is one which expects that portraying a crafted image and exchanging information will create a sense of friendship and belonging. It is a philosophy of friendship embodied in Facebook which, according to the worldview of the movie, doesn’t work.
The movie itself endorses a different philosophy of friendship. True friendship, according to the film, is spending face-to-face time over a meal with friends. It is sticking up for friends. It is being a gentleman even to enemies. It is giving the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. It is staying in touch and being true through thick and thin. True friendship is not about image, but about substance.
III. Biblical Worldview Comparison
The Scripture verse that comes to mind as I watched this film is Proverbs 27:10: “… Better is a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far away.” The verse emphasizes the importance of physical proximity for meaningful relationship. By contrasting the term “neighbor” and “brother,” the passage is taking the less intimate friendship (neighbor) and contrasting it with the more intimate friendship (brother). Yet because the neighbor is near when the brother is far away, it is the neighbor whose relationship is superior.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Proverbs are written to capture a general rule, but not an absolute “it is always this way” law. Sometimes a distant friend is better than a nearby neighbor. However, the general principle is that real and meaningful relationships require real interaction. While there is much that is immoral and crude about The Social Network as a movie, its primary message on friendship is (in my view) refreshingly dead on.
The ultimate impact of social networking on our society is still unclear, and there are definitely both positives and negatives that it offers. Some psychological studies I have read suggest that online forums are a healthy benefit when they supplement relationships which are predominantly rooted in real, in-person interaction. But when friendships are predominantly online relationships, that is when loneliness and poor social health follows. At least, that is what I have seen in some of the studies I have read on the subject. But the ultimate impact of this radical shift in our society’s approach to friendships has yet to be seen.
Nevertheless, a sober warning against banking too much of ones social health and relationships in online socializing is a welcome word from Hollywood. Now, shall we watch for a Facebook page with videos and forums critiquing the impact of Hollywood movies on modern approaches to relationships? It does seem the tables could be turned…
Eat, Pray, Love (2010)
Posted by admin in Film Discussions on August 20, 2010
Prepared by Dr. Michael LeFebvre (8/19/2010)
For all the hype, I was surprised at how poorly this film was done. The photography was fantastic—I thought the scenery was beautifully shot, and some of the food images were both colorful and stunning. But I was disappointed at pretty much everything else about this film. It comes across like a preachy documentary about a certain (rather shallow) philosophy about relationships. Typically, a movie tells a story and the lessons are woven below the surface; this film is all mantras strung together along the surface. It lacks much of a story beyond changing scenery.
But, for all its shortcomings, the movie does succeed brilliantly as a window into the mentality of contemporary America. The film is a blockbuster, not because it tells a good story, but because it follows a best-selling book, and because the book and movie both tell us what we want to believe is true. This movie reflects the way Americans want life to work. From that perspective, this movie is a worthwhile window into our soul as a culture—and hopefully one which people will look into, see its shallowness (and that it doesn’t really work), and they will look for truth deeper than this collection of well-intentioned but vacuous platitudes.
| Film Forum Review | |
|---|---|
| Artistry | |
| The scenery and filmwork are stunning. But the acting is forced (Is Julia Roberts really trying to convince us that eating pasta at that outside cafe fills the loneliness in her character’s soul?) and the plot is poorly developed. | |
| Worldview | |
| It does not really have a coherent worldview, but that is the movie’s worldview. So I give it two stars, because the movie actually does a decent job showing the postmodern ideal of a self-constructed worldview. | |
| Overall | |
|---|---|
| Average score from both categories. | |
Storyline Review
| Plot Element | Description |
| 1. The Hero | Elizabeth Gilbert |
| 2. The Hero’s Goal | To feel alive, again—After introducing us to Liz and her marital pain, the movie introduces her quest. Liz explains to Delia her adventure plans, saying, “You know what I felt when I woke up this morning? Nothing. I need to change. I have no pulse.” |
| 3. The Adversary | Stephen and David—Liz has two messed up relationships she is wrestling to overcome:
(1) She is trying to escape her ex-husband, Stephen. She now realizes she was too young when she married Stephen and she does not love him anymore—but Stephen still loves her. (She’ll finally achieve release from Stephen after her “Pray” lessons in India.) (2) She is also trying to escape from her post-marriage infatuation with David. She now realizes that, “after exhausing herself in one relationship she fell into the arms of an infatuation” which was never really true love. She does not want to be miserable with David anymore—but David “still wants her to be miserable with him so they can be happy being miserable together.” (She’ll finally achieve release from David after her “Eat” lessons in Italy.) |
| 4. The Hero’s Flaw | Imbalanced Life—Liz is the typical American, who understands ambition and entertainment, but she does not understand the spiritual balance of harmonious life. |
| 5. Self-Revelation | Eat, Pray, Love—In order to achieve a balanced life, Liz must learn the harmony of pleasure (represented by “eat,” learned in Italy), peace (represented by “pray,” learned in India), and trust (represented by “love,” learned in Bali).
(1) Eat represents Liz’s discovery of pleasure. Americans understand entertainment, but they don’t know pleasure. The secret to pleasure, Liz learns, is bel far niente, “the beauty of doing nothing.” Instead of feeling pressed to make the most of our time (as Americans do) or feeling guilty for gaining weight after eating something yummy (as Americans do), Liz learns to do things just for pleasure, without feeling guilty about pleasure. Sitting down to eat good food, and enjoying it, is a metaphor for lesson #1: pleasure. Once Liz learns this lesson, she writes an email to David explaining that she is giving up their relationship (which is marked by misery) to pursue pleasure. (2) Pray represents Liz’s discovery of peace. Americans are constantly busy and stressed out about everything—constantly thinking. Liz found it difficult to empty her mind and just “be.” If she could master the discipline of meditation, clearing her mind, the universe fill the vacuum of the “meditation chamber” of her mind. She needs to “let go” and just “be.” A major factor in letting go is forgiving yourself. Liz must not wait for Stephen to forgive her; she needs to go ahead and forgive herself “and drop it.” The empowerment to do this comes, Liz learns, by understanding that “god dwells within you, as you.” Sitting down to meditate (or, “pray”) is a metaphor for lesson #2: peace. Once Liz learns this lesson, she dances with a projection of Stephen in her mind, telling him, “If you still love me, love me and miss me. And when you think of me, send me love—and drop it.” Thus Liz’s subconscious projection of “Stephen” drops it, and Liz makes peace with “the wild elephant” in her life. (3) Love represents Liz’s discovery of true love rooted in trust (not sex or infatuation). All through the movie, the achievement of love has been the primary quest. It was Ketut’s prophecy about marriage which launched the film. The Italy experience approached its end with Liz looking at frilly nightgowns, longing to have someone for whom to wear one. The India experience approached its end with Richard’s exhortation to “believe in love, again.” Liz’s confrontation with the lesson on love serves as the “final confrontation” in the dramatic structure of the story. |
| 6. The Final Confrontation | To Love Felipe—The theme of Bali is love: “everyone needs a little love affair in Bali.” But what is love? The whole sequence in Bali is filled with platitudes on love. Perhaps a key contrast is Liz’s introduction to two opportunities for love at her first night party at the beach: the “hot” young guy (whom she realizes she would have gone for 10 years ago, “maybe even 6 months ago,” but now she spurns); and old, wounded Felipe (whom she allows to give her a ride home, beginning a slow and gradual relationship of mutual trust). Liz is learning that love is not about infatuation (the basis of her relationships with Stephen and David), but trust. “The only way to heal is to trust.”
Liz had spurned the young guy who took her to the beach for a swim (she was balking along the way with him, saying, “I don’t have a swim suit with me.”) Later in the film, at the point of final confrontation, Felipe takes her to the beach (and she balks along the way, saying, “I don’t have a swim suit with me,” helping underscore the contrast with the previous fellow.) Felipe, however, does not want to swim: he wants to take Liz in his boat to his secret island. He is opening his wounded heart to her, and showing her trust. It is too much for Liz; she cannot accept his proposal and runs away, with Felipe calling after her, “If you run away from me, you run away from all the possibilities of your own life.” After packing to return to America, Liz goes to see Ketut one last time. Ketut asks why she has given up her boyfriend. Liz explains she worked so hard to find balance, she does not want to lose it now. Ketut gives the final word of wisdom Liz needs: “Sometimes to lose balance for love is part of living a balanced life.” With that word, Liz leaves a note for Felipe to meet her at the dock, and there she agrees to get in the boat with him—a metaphor for trusting each other. Liz announces “her word” is attraversiamo, “Let’s cross over.” |
| 7. The Resolution | “Physics of the Quest” speech—Along the way through the film, Liz has learned that pain is part of growing, and that a broken heart is a good thing because it means you tried something. But that the balanced life moves onward, accepting everything that comes as the universe teaching you, and forgiving yourself. “The truth will not be withheld.” |
| Message | Life requires balance—a balance between pursuing pleasure (“eat”) and maintaining inner peace (“pray”), which provides life with the bearings in which to nurture the risky (but crowning) third member of the triad, “love.” |
II. Worldview of the Film
The film is a postmodern blend of secular humanism (ala modern Italy), Hinduism (ala India and Bali), and … well, selfishness (ala big city America). Sorry to have to tack such a strong label like “selfishness” in the mix, but it really is a major theme of the film—endorsing the American penchant for selfishness clothed in platitudes of moderation. (Note, for instance, the climactic scene of the house being built with $18K in selflessly given donations—a great chance for a message on selflessness—which is, however, summed up as teaching us, “When you set out in the world to help yourself, you end up helping tutti—‘everyone’.”) Granted, the film exhorts moderation in one’s selfishness (“not too much god and not too much self,” Ketut exhorts). But, we are told to seek our own pleasure (if the relationship is tough, move on) and to forgive ourselves (don’t wait for others to forgive you). As a movie built around stories about relationships, this is plain, old fashioned selfishness, upon which Hindu ideas about inner peace are hung.
This kind of “borrowing” of ideas from multiple worldviews to create ones own “truth” is classic postmodernism. Postmodernity is all about “cherry picking” ideas from the wisdom of various cultures to develop the right system that works for you. It happens that Hinduism is one of the major sources for some of Liz’s borrowed ideas, but the film leaves each of us free to pick other ideas from different sources to find our own balance. The closing line of the film (Liz’s “physics of the quest” speech) extols the discovery of “truth” by borrowing what seems wise to you from all the belief systems you encounter on your journey through life. “If you are brave enough,” the closing speech essentially says, “to leave behind what is comfortable, to go on a journey, accepting everything that happens as clues and everyone who enters your life as teachers, prepared to face everything and to forgive yourself, truth will not be withheld from you.” This is the worldview of postmodernity, where there is no single system of truth which is objectively true for everyone. Instead, your truth is whatever system of values (picked up as you journey) works for you to give your life balance. For Liz, that balance was found through the “eat,” “pray,” “love” triad. And now Liz has become one of those teachers you can borrow from on your journey, but you might end up with a different truth for yourself as you meld what you pick up from Liz into what you learn elsewhere.
Certainly, there are many points that are true in the course of this film. The film’s critique of the American penchant for entertainment and ignorance of pleasure was well-expressed; and the importance of taking time for the simple things of life (like eating with friends), was another true point. But truth is not simply the sum total of various true points. And the Christian faith is based on the premise that there is a God who is true, and that truth is therefore not subjectively defined. We learn objective truth from the Author of all things—the Creator.
III. Biblical Worldview Comparison
There is a line in the movie—at a point when Liz is finding it difficult to focus during the morning chants at the Indian ashram—when Richard tells her, “You don’t have to focus your devotion on the guru, you can focus devotion on anything you want. It’s about you.” The first part of this statement sounds very humble on the part of the guru, because it tells us that the guru does not require us to be devoted to her—we can choose our own devotional focus; but the last phrase reveals the actual pridefulness of actually living that way, because it means that I choose my own truth.
But the Christian conviction is that there is one system of truth behind the universe—a much richer “physics of the quest” comprised of a whole system of objective truths and values for human life and relationships. And if this is the case, then trying to devise ones own set of “what works for me” values will ultimately rub up against the way the universe, life, and relationships actually work.
True harmony in life is to learn and incorporate into life that which objectively is true. And the Christian is one who has come to believe that Jesus—in all his suffering and his glory—dwelt among men as God incarnate to lead us into objective truth. Not only by his teachings, but also by his selfless work for our objective forgiveness from God (a kind of forgiveness far more freeing than drumming up images of self-forgiveness).
John records these words from Christ: “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life… If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’.” (John 8:12, 31-32)
There is freedom from all the bondage and baggage a person like Liz represents. But it is not to be found through a random journey collecting maxims and experiences from other broken and hurting people around the world. Certainly, there are true points which can be appreciated from such a journey. However, truth—as a system of life and relationships bringing balance between heaven and earth—is only to be found in the one Person who is both fully God and fully Man: Jesus Christ. For those who abide in him and in his words, there is truth that sets free.