The great thing is that we can learn much from those of other faiths without sacrificing our own beliefs and, hence, the value of “A Serious Man.” The film is about faith.  It doesn’t matter how you cloak that faith in religious terms.  The Coens have made a film that speaks universally to all faiths, and even to atheists. So while it happens to be set in a Jewish world, every single thing that happens could just as easily have happened to Christians or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus.

And that is why you should see it. No matter what branch of faith you reside in, you will find plenty to identify with in this wonderful, dark, insightful, and thought-provoking movie.

There are spoilers ahead, but for now I’ll speak in generalities and a few specifics that do not impact the viewing experience and let you know about the big spoilers.

To Dybbuk or Not To Dybbuk?

The film’s central theme is replayed over and over again, which demonstrates the Coens’ outstanding writing talents.  Every scene places the main character, Larry Gopnik, in a position where he is made to wonder — what the heck is going on and why is all this stuff happening to me? Sound familiar?  Maybe the story of Job?  Maybe your own life, or that of someone you know?

The film opens with a quote from Rashi, short for Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki, an 11th century French rabbi who commented extensively on the Talmud (a rabbinic discussion on Jewish law).

Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.

For anyone who wonders what the heck “A Serious Man”  is about, the Coens state it right up front and the message is delivered repeatedly. In essence it is this: it is fruitless to ask “why?” We aren’t in a position to question God’s motives.  All we can do is act in faith, be good, and find somebody to love.

Then comes this mysterious prologue.

Dybbuk?  Human? Who knows? The Coens tell us: all you can do is act in faith. The complete quotation from Rashi is, “Conduct yourself with Him with simplicity and depend on Him, and do not inquire of the future; rather, accept whatever happens to you with simplicity and then, you will be with Him and to His portion.”

The wife did what she thought was right, coming from a place of faith. Will she be cursed? Will the husband? Will the body be found? What will become of the couple? Their descendants? The Coens tell us that not only should we, and they, not worry about it, it is pointless to do so.  The events occurred. There was no reason why, they just did.

The Coens don’t even let us know if they think he’s a dybbuk. The end credits read, “Fyvush Finkel – Dybbuk?” However, I have an interpretation of this scene that goes deeper. Of course it’s a dybbuk. Not just because he gets stabbed in the chest, laughs heartily and exits without dropping dead, as he should — but because he inserts doubt and deception into the relationship of the husband and wife. Like Satan, this is a dybbuk’s purpose. The husband is left consumed with doubt.  But the wife….ah!  The wife remains steadfast in her faith and, consequently, her actions.

Faith vs. Doubt

And so it goes throughout the entire film, to the main character, Larry Gopnik.  Is God punishing him?  Who knows? But the fact is that Larry does not ever act out of faith. He remains steadfast in his doubt, and may (or may not) pay dearly for it in the end.

Now we move to the body of the film. Larry is first glimpsed discussing Schrodinger’s cat to his physics class. The lesson of this famous thought experiment is that until the box is opened and it is determined if the cat is alive or dead, either possibility exists. And once we open the box, we have disrupted the experiment, so we in fact can never know if the cat was alive or dead before opening the box. This scene, like almost every scene in the film, revolves around the same thematic element.

Larry’s wife is leaving him for a smug and condescending man by the name of Sy Ableman. Both he and Sy experience separate car crashes at apparently the same moment. Sy dies. Larry does not. Why? We don’t know.

Someone has been writing disparaging notes the to tenure committee at Larry’s university, as we await the committee’s decision. Later on, we learn Sy “wrote the tenure committee.” Are they one and the same? We don’t know.

His stern next-door neighbor — a Gentile — seems to have a personal dislike for Larry…and owns guns. Later on, as Larry is confronted with Mr. Park (see below), he comes by and asks, “Is this man bothering you?” Does the neighbor dislike Larry? Is he an anti-Semite as the film implies? We don’t know.

His unemployed homeless brother is living with Larry’s family while he writes “The Mentaculus”, a tome on something having to do with how the universe and probability works. Larry later finds it and it appears to be the scribblings of a madman. Is it? We don’t know.

Later in the film, during his son’s Bar-Mitzvah, his wife makes the first move towards reconciliation. Is it genuine? Will they reconcile? We don’t know.

Throughout the film, Larry is confronted with one crisis after another. He wonders why all these things are happening to him. He asks why God is doing this to him. Why is he being made to suffer? We don’t know.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

Wisdom?  Yes and No.

He does what we all might do — seek out spiritual guidance. He goes to visit three Rabbis. The first seems to offer only surface platitudes. The second seems to offer a pointless fable. And he can’t even get in to see the venerable third, the one who might actually have all the answers.

In truth, however, each rabbi’s message is useful. The problem is that Larry isn’t listening — or hearing — what they say. In fact, the answers to all of Larry’s questions are right there for the taking throughout the movie, just as they always are for each of us. But Larry is so far removed in his relationship with God that he doesn’t see them.

The first rabbi’s point is simple: revel in the everyday miracles God provides us. The second rabbi’s point is that you’ll drive yourself crazy asking “why? Is any of what happens supposed to be a sign from God?”

As the second rabbi tells him straight out:

Larry:  I want an answer.

Rabbi:  Sure, we all want an answer.  Hashem doesn’t owe us the answer, Larry.  Hashem doesn’t owe us anything.  The obligation runs the other way.

Larry: Then why does he make us feel the questions if he’s not going to give us any answers?

Rabbi:  He hasn’t told me.

Accept The Mystery

It is the screenplay’s great triumph that every scene reinforces this theme over and over. Indeed, the subplot involving Mr. Park and his son Clive practically screams to the audience what the movie is about. Notice in the first scene how Clive sits in a chair in Larry’s office across from Larry’s desk, which we see in a wide shot . We see the top of the entire desk. There is no envelope.

Clive leaves.  Larry makes a call.  As he is dialing, Larry notices (via a POV shot) an envelope on his desk. It was definitely not there in the wide shots immediately before.  We see that Clive doesn’t drop it on the desk as he exits.

It just appears.

How did it get there? Why is it there? We don’t know, nor should we even ask. It just is. And Larry is driven crazy when confronted with a real-life version of Schrodinger’s cat.

Park: This is defamation. Ground for lawsuit.

Larry: You’re threatening to sue me for defaming your son?

Park: Yes.

Larry:  Let’s keep it simple.  I could pretend the money never appeared.  That’s not defaming anyone.

Park: Yes, and a passing grade.

Larry: Passing grade?

Park:Yes.

Larry: Or you’ll sue me?

Park: For taking money.

Larry: So he did leave the money.

Park: This is defamation.

Larry: It doesn’t make sense.  Either he left the money or he didn’t.

Park: Please. Accept the mystery.

Accept the mystery. The message of the film. Again. One might even choose to view Mr. Park and Clive as angels sent to deliver a message to Larry — stop asking why, accept the mystery, and live your life — just like the Goy.

The third rabbi? That Larry doesn’t even get to see him is itself the message — the old man has no more wisdom than anyone else.

Indeed, Larry has been beset by a dybbuk known as Doubt. He needs to stab it in the chest and send it on its way. We hear him say throughout the film,”I haven’t done anything” in many different contexts. The subtext the Coens are providing us is that Larry is simply puttering through life.  He is not doing anything remarkable. He is out of touch with his family, his wife, his brother, his students, and with God. He is even exiled out of his own home to a motel called The Jolly Roger — an obvious reference to a pirate ship, a ship without a port, without a home.

Larry’s Lesson

So what finally happens? With everything seemingly falling apart around him, jammed into a tiny motel room with his suffering brother, he awakens to his brother sobbing by the motel’s empty pool. The man is at wit’s end himself, in trouble with law, homeless and unemployed and probably crazy. He sobs, “Hashem has given you everything. He’s given me sh*t!”

And Larry shows compassion. He embraces his brother. It’s the first time we’ve seen an expression of caring for a fellow human from Larry.   What follows is a dream where he sends his brother on a boat across a beautiful lake to Canada — using the money from the envelope. There his brother will be safe. It’s this moment of reaching out that seems to turn the tide for Larry. One by one, all the crises drop away and are resolved. It seems as if all will be well.

But this is a Coen Brothers film. They have shown us what the movie is about, over and over again. And as if to test us — Larry returns to his office, and it is implied that he will take the cash to pay an attorney to defend his brother, and give Clive a passing grade of “C-”. The phone rings. It’s his doctor. He has concerns about some recent tests — the kind of concerns where he needs Larry to come in and talk, but he is not specific. Simultaneously, his newly Bar-Mitvahed son and his classmates congregate outside a concrete building, as an old teacher fumbles with a set of keys so they can get in….for a tornado approaches. And as the tornado bears down….

The End.

What’s going to happen?  What does it mean?  If you are asking those questions, you haven’t been paying attention.

Conclusion

So we return to A Serious Man as a faith-based film that anyone can enjoy and yield great dividends from. The circumstances and questions that Larry faces are the same that we all face, and every religion responds in essentially the same way. We already know what Judaism says. I imagine Christians would assert that we are not one to question God’s plan, but to play the hand we’re dealt and have faith that He has his reasons. His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama said at a speech I went to, “There is no point in worrying about whether or not something is going to happen. If it happens, then it happens, and worrying about it won’t change anything. If it doesn’t happen, then you spent all this time worrying over something that didn’t happen.” Religious Science might say that once something happens, we have the power as individuals not only to derive a personal meaning from it, but by virtue of the fact that our mind has provided that meaning, then that is the meaning. We should thus act accordingly to make the best of the situation and use it in a positive fashion. Even atheists should look at the film and be heartened. God isn’t causing anything, so at the end of the day, you either press on or you give up regardless of the situation.

We, the audience, are even given the real wisdom of the film because we (but not Larry) get a message from the venerable Rabbi Marshak, delivered to Larry’s son after his Bar-Mitzvah. The message? He quotes Jefferson Airplane — the song that recurs throughout the movie.

When the truth is found to be lies, and all the hope within you dies…be a good boy.

And, we know the rest of the words. “Find somebody to love.” Because that’s all you can do, because God is love. Participate in what God is.

Then again….the ancient Rabbi was listening to the boys’ transistor radio and that’s the song that was playing. Is Marshak just senile and repeating what he’s hearing, or is it wisdom?

Or is it…?  Or maybe…?  What if….?

If you want to hear another perspective about this movie, have a look at Father Barron’s comments.  He often comments on the spiritual messages of films.

In an interview on the Catholic cable channel EWTN, Estevez joked about the horror of making the pitch for this movie about a pilgrimage – no massive special effects, no parade of gore or bedroom scenes with nudity. It’s just an old man hiking across Spain with three people he meets along the way. It’s a small movie, made on a small budget. It’s about our humanity and our spirituality. It’s so easy to imagine Tinseltown’s eyes glazing over.

—–

But what Estevez said in that interview was still striking. “Hollywood is a very difficult place to be earnest and be heartfelt. And I am not interested in making films that are anything but. There’s a lot of vulgarity in films. There’s a lot of violence, casual sex – things that make me uncomfortable watching – and I’m not interested in perpetuating that message.”  …

Here’s how “The Way” unfolds. Sheen’s character, California ophthalmologist Tom Avery, is a widower who’s been angry at his son’s decision to forego a graduate degree to wander the world. While Avery’s out on the golf course, a French policeman calls to tell him his son has died in a storm in the Pyrenees. When Avery arrives to identify the body, the policeman tells him about the “camino,” and he resolves to travel the route with his son’s cremated remains. On this very long walk, he finds companionship with a burly Dutchman who wants to lose weight, an Irish writer with writer’s block, and a bitter Canadian woman trying to quit smoking – and ultimately rediscovers his lost faith.

The movie is beautiful travelogue of the sites along the route, from mountain vistas to beautiful old cathedrals. It’s a great backdrop for a subtle human story. After the Canadian woman cynically suggestes Sheen’s character is there to march on a self-absorbed baby-boomer journey to a James Taylor soundtrack, she’s embarrassed to learn the truth. Later she admits her own dark troubles. She was a battered wife and is haunted by an abortion she underwent because she didn’t want her husband to have two females to brutalize. She says she can hear her daughter’s voice. Estevez explained, “We give voice to the unborn, and again, that is another thing Hollywood doesn’t necesssarily celebrate.”

Full piece here. Below is an interview Estevez did withLaura Ingraham:

But Kendrick couldn’t predict the impact his Albany, Ga. church would make on a film industry indifferent to matters of faith.

—–

Kendrick rallied his 3,000-member congregation to fund the 2003 film “Flywheel.” The movie, which followed a sketchy car salesman who finds Jesus Christ, ended up playing six consecutive weeks at a Georgia movie house despite featuring an all-volunteer crew. The film’s shock success helped fuel “Facing the Giants” and “Fireproof,” two faith-based indies which proved more profitable than many Hollywood features.

“Fireproof,” budgeted at $500,000, hauled in $33 million with no bankable stars and a tiny marketing push.

By the church’s own standards, Kendrick‘s latest film represents a quantum leap in both budget and outreach.

“Courageous” tracks four police officers whose lives are changed after tragedy strikes close to home. It’s a tale of grief and healing, one that emphasizes the profound influence fathers have on their children.

The film cost $1 million to produce and will be shown in nearly 1,000 screens nationwide as well as in Canada starting Sept. 30.

Kendrick and crew researched the role fathers play in the family structure before making “Courageous,“ uncovering some alarming statistics along the way. They learned more than 90 percent of gang members come from fatherless homes.

“They’re looking for that belonging to a male group,” says Kendrick, who typically writes, produces and directs his church’s films as well as appears in front of the camera.

Children who grow up without a strong, positive male figure are also less likely to believe in a higher power.

“Those who didn’t think dad was proud of them struggle to believe God was there for them,” he says. “There’s such a close correlation.”

Kendrick can point to his own family history to show how faith can break patterns which might otherwise linger for generations. His grandfather’s alcoholism could have shaken his father’s ability to raise a family.

“When my dad was college age he made up his mind … this junk wasn’t going to go to his kids,” he says. “My two brothers and I didn’t grow up in a family with all that junk there. We saw a conviction in him to guard himself and his family. My dad broke the chain.”

Today’s young, fatherless men don’t even have pop culture examples to follow.

“There are very few shows now where the dad is an honorable man,” says Kendrick, who pines for a modern version of “The Cosby Show.“

Police officers proved a fitting metaphor for the church’s latest project. Fathers must protect their families, and that’s similar to the function of law enforcement, he says.

Kendrick’s film productions don’t begin without an extended amount of prayer.

“We want God to bless it. Our first desire is to make Him happy,“ he says. “We spend close to a year asking, ‘Lord, what do you want us to do?’“

That doesn’t involve fancy trailers, bloated entourages or Pilates instructors.

When “Fireproof” star Kirk Cameron was on set he noticed the difference between the church’s brand of movie making and the Hollywood model.

“This is like being at summer camp and there happens to be a movie camera here,“ Kendrick recalls the actor telling him. “When you’re on set making movies you’re not dealing with egos and trying to pamper people‘ … I enjoyed hearing that.”

It’s safe to say Hollywood-style success hasn’t gone to Kendrick’s head.

“We’re the first to admit we’re a South Georgia church in a fairly rural area,” he says. Church volunteers still help flesh out the cast and crew. “We didn’t go to school for this, We’re learning by trial and error. We want to continue improving the craft of filmmaking.”

That learning curve may impact the next generation of faith-based filmmakers.

“We’ve had dozens and dozens of conversations with young filmmakers. We want to help them in any way possible,” he says. “Don’t go through the speed bumps we went through.”

Directed by Jon Favreau (the Iron Man films, Elf, Zathura) from a script by multiple hands, Cowboys & Aliens has plenty of energy and action and is quite enjoyable, but it suffers from a curious lack of interesting plot twists and a rather glaring casting misstep. Most classic Westerns, contrary to contemporary beliefs, were given excellent, complex plots with strong character motivations. Unfortunately, the plot of Cowboys & Aliens is relatively simple.

We know from the film’s title and trailers that aliens are going to attack in the Old West, and it’s axiomatic that once that happens, the earthlings will fight back. So, no surprises there. Once the Western-standard mysterious stranger Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) arrives in town, we know the aliens won’t be far behind. And once he poses a challenge to the rule of the Western-standard arrogant ranch king Col. Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), we know that the two will reconcile at some point in order to fight the aliens together.

The same is true of the choices made by Dolarhyde’s arrogant idiot son, Percy, Indian guide Nat Colorado (Adam Beach), and the tribe of Apache Indians who capture the small band of people fighting the aliens. Colorado is a likeable character, thanks to Beach’s understated performance and his character’s interesting and laudable longing to be a valued member of the society and in particular of Dolarhyde’s ranch team. Unfortunately, he’s not seen all that much.

The Apaches inject dramatic energy and an amusing element of political incorrectness in their savage, unruly celebration after capturing a group of white settlers. But none of them are given complex or particularly unusual characters. Of course, although classic Hollywood Westerns showed the Indians in a much more positive light than contemporary film historians acknowledge, they weren’t always given characters as complex as the protagonists’, just as is the case here. That’s natural to any story: the subsidiary characters aren’t explored as deeply as the main ones. And in Cowboys & Aliens, as in the best Westerns of Hollywood’s golden age, the Indians are shown making real, reasoned choices, which is a nice throwback to the classic Western approach.

Another plus is actor Walt Goggins, who is amusing as Hunt, one of the villains. Alas, he, too, doesn’t get nearly enough screen time to make a sufficient impact.

There’s one interesting plot twist involving mysterious lady Ella Swenson (Olivia Wilde, Tron Legacy, Year One, House), but even that is obvious fairly early on, given her rather strange behavior.

Where this film most differs from the classic Hollywood Western is in the decision to cast two extremely stolid, unemotional actors to play the stoic and fairly formulaic main characters, Lonergan and Dolarhyde. Although they’ve both been successful as action heroes, neither Craig nor Ford conveys much personality these days, and as a result they sap some of the potential energy from the film.

When one considers the great Western actors of the past, what stands out is the personal touch each one brought to the genre—John Wayne’s humor, Jimmy Stewart’s emotional vulnerability, Randolph Scott’s grit and determination. (Clint Eastwood set the pattern for today’s taciturn, joyless Western hero/antihero.)

Likewise, the great villains of the past, such as Barton MacLane, Jack Palance, Walter Brennan (also one of the world’s greatest sidekicks), Eli Wallach, and Lee Marvin, brought a delightfully perverse joy to their villainy—it’s interesting to note how many of their memorable scenes show these characters smiling or even grinning as they do their evil deeds. The contemporary cliché is that nobody in the Wild West ever smiled. It’s silly, false, and dramatically limiting, and it’s a shame that Cowboys & Aliens doesn’t transcend that. Ford, in particular, doesn’t manage to inject much humanity into his character until the film nears its climax.

These are problems that prevent Cowboys & Aliens from reaching its full potential, but the film has a great deal going for it. It includes a good deal of Christian imagery, some of it overly obvious (beginning with the town’s name, Absolution) but laudable nonetheless, and the Christian theme of personal redemption is evident throughout the film. The latter is not a necessary choice of theme for a film about alien attacks, and hence it is to the filmmaker’s credit for including it. In addition the film includes a personal, Christlike sacrifice which is emotionally and thematically satisfying.

A further and perhaps even more effective Christian element is the presence of a fascinating and complex character: the local parson, Meacham. Superbly played by Clancy Brown, Parson Meacham is a clearly sincere and knowledgeable Christian, and he’s no sissy. He can handle a gun quite well, and he teaches one of the characters how to shoot. He even gets the drop on Lonergan when the latter first arrives in town. Meacham is a truly unusual character, and I would be happy to see an entire movie with him as the central character or the protagonist’s best friend. Unfortunately, for reasons I won’t reveal so as not to spoil the story for those who haven’t seen the film, Meacham, too, is not in many scenes and is given suitable prominence in even fewer.

Also, as the historical/fantasy novelist Lars Walker has observed, the filmmakers make a very important choice in treating the story seriously, and not tarting it up with irony. Had they done the latter, audience involvement would have been undermined radically, perhaps fatally.

Like the great Westerns of the past, Cowboys & Aliens has some highly interesting characters in subsidiary roles—Meacham, Hunt, and Colorado. Where it differs from the classics is in the central characters, who are less engaging than they should be. Personally, I would have liked to see much more from such smartly drawn and well-acted characters—but of course that would leave much less time for the sci-fi elements. All of this suggests that I would rather watch a classic Western than a modern sci-fi film. I confess: mea maxima culpa.

So don’t get me wrong: Cowboys & Aliens is quite enjoyable and diverting, and its themes are praiseworthy. It’s rather boldly Christian and politically incorrect at times, which I appreciate. It could have been more interesting and insightful into the human condition, but these saving graces make it a worthwhile summer popcorn film.

But, boy, when is Hollywood going to remember how to make a real Western?

These days, it seems everyone wants to be famous – and the younger the person, the more attention-obsessed they seem to be. But what if you garnered international attention because a shark literally bit off your arm?

That was the dilemma faced by Bethany Hamilton on Halloween of 2003, when the teenage champion surfer survived a surprise shark attack off the coast of her home in Hawaii. Yet unlike others who have made the news due to freak occurrences, Hamilton has continued to fascinate the media due to the fact that she not only survived and recovered, but has become an even bigger star surfer since then.

—–

Her odds-defying story is now the basis of the new film “Soul Surfer,” which dives in to Hamilton’s story by showing that her entire family has two big passions: catching waves and celebrating their Christian faith. Early on, the couple of church scenes seem like a gloss as the focus rests on surfing action and Bethany’s teenage social life.

But once the film digs deeper into her story with the attack and a riveting sequence depicting her family’s desperate race to get her to a hospital, “Surfer” finds surer footing and its performances – including Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt as Bethany’s parents, and Anna Sophia Robb as Bethany herself, with “American Idol” champion and country singing superstar Carrie Underwood as her youth minister – also take root.

Aside from the inherent spectacle of surfing Hawaii’s spectacular coastline in competitions, “Surfer” proves affecting not only for its depiction of a family bonding through trauma but also for its portrayal of Bethany’s mission trip to the Indonesian coast after the devastating tsunami there. Her realization that there’s always a bigger crisis than your own to help others through is a timely reminder amid the ongoing tragedy in Japan.

With such a dramatic story to be told, it would have been nice if the film had attracted a heavyweight director and writing team to the project – and at one point, Oscar-winning writer Ron Bass (“Rain Man”) had his hands in the mix before the final product was written by a hodgepodge of six scribes. But director Sean McNamara is a veteran of teen TV sitcoms and it’s apparent that he and executive producer Douglas Schwartz (who earned zillions as the creator of ‘90s TV smash “Baywatch”) decided to aim their sights on reaching teenage girls and their families above other audiences.

It should be noted that “Soul Surfer” has a half-decent budget of $15 million and is being released in a full 2000 theaters nationwide this weekend. Sony Pictures has a Christian-film division called Affirm which is facing its first big test with this “Surfer” this weekend. For any one who complains that Hollywood doesn’t make solid live-action family films, or that Christian films rarely seem to have a budget or recognizable stars, then be aware that the studios are going to pay a lot of attention to how “Soul Surfer” does this weekend and this is one Christian film that’s actually entertaining and worth getting behind.

Your Highness

On the utterly other end of the moviegoing spectrum is “Your Highness,” an elaborate attempt at a comedy that also weaves in elements of knighthood, fantasy and science fiction spectacles and adventure films with its seemingly endless array of dick jokes, fart jokes and swearing. Featuring newly minted Best Actress Oscar winner Natalie Portman and her fellow Oscar nominee James Franco in what were supposed to be bawdily humorous roles, the film actually centers on a lazy loser of a knight played by Danny McBride (HBO’s “East Bound and Down”).

“Your Highness” follows a knight named Thadeous (McBride) as he embarks on a quest to rescue the bride (Zooey Deschanel) of his brother Fabious (Franco) from the clutches of an evil warlock after she’s kidnapped at their wedding. They and their men wind up meeting Isabel (Portman), a ravishing beauty who also happens to be an ass-kicking adventurer herself, and team up with her on their quest.

Facing numerous monsters and other dangers along the way, the rowdy band of misfit heroes should have had plenty of chances for creative humor as well. After all, while McBride’s HBO series “East Bound and Down” is almost relentlessly mean-spirited and outrageously profane, it’s also one of the sharpest portrayals of middle-aged loser-dom to ever hit the airwaves. But “Highness” almost exclusively relies on potty humor and foul language being used in inappropriate settings to score its relatively meager laughs.

Mixed with elaborate cinematography, great locations, colorful costumes and a terrific score, “Your Highness” had the chance to get everything right and become a genre-smashing comedy classic like “Ghostbusters.” But instead it serves as a prime example that even if you throw mountains of money to dress a film up, it still seems poor when the writing doesn’t deliver.

—–

There’s nothing at all in the trailer to indicate the faith elements that are obviously a very big part of the true story of Bethany Hamilton — a young surfer who lost her arm in a shark attack and through the love of her parents, her Christian faith, and an incredible amount of determination, miraculously returned to tournament surfing. Instead, the marketing’s aimed directly at teens and positioned as a coming of age/overcoming obstacles/feel good film. Nothing wrong with that. As long as the film itself is true to the faith elements (from what I’ve read, it is), this is probably a wise move. People already aware of the story will show up, so why categorize your product as a “Christian film” if it’s so much more?

This is how it used to be, anyway, before Hollywood grew so openly hostile to Christianity. Hollywood always uses “reflecting reality” as an excuse for its coarseness, but won’t do so to reflect the reality of how the Christian faith is a central component in the lives of most Americans. Our faith is as natural a part of who we are as our work and family and secular lives, so there’s no reason to, for lack of a better term, “ghetto-ize” this kind of story as Christian.

In the real world, this is a universal story, no?

I do hope atheists have some sort of Sucker Punch Squad in effect. Hate to see the look on their heathen faces after walking out of a movie the marketing promised would feature underage girls in bikinis.

Here’s part of an interview Hamilton (who seems very pleased with the film) did with Christianity Today:

CT: What did you think of the movie?

BH: I thought it turned out really good. The story is true to my family and me. My family and I all took part in making the film from the very beginning till the very end. We had a lot of say in the script and day to day on the set. We’re all very proud of it and excited to share it.

What parts did you feel like they got just perfect?

I thought the shark attack was really well done. It’s exactly how it really was. It started off a very happy, fun day, perfect weather. And then it happened real quick. …

What do you want people to take away from watching this film?

If they’re going through a hard time, it would be cool for them to be able to relate to our family and know that there is hope in life, especially if you have Jesus Christ in your life. You can overcome these horrible circumstances and turn it into something good. And I just hope they can just enjoy the surfing, because it’s so fun to watch!

A lot of people are already familiar with your story. Is there something the movie brings to the table that maybe hasn’t been presented before?

Mainly the surfing. You don’t get to see that really in my book [also titled Soul Surfer]. You just see a couple of pictures, but you don’t get to see what actually goes down in the water, watching the physical struggle of living with one arm. So the movie is more of a whole pie rather than just a piece of the pie.

Much more here.

Mr. DeMille tells us outright…

“The theme of this picture is whether man ought to be ruled by God’s law or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Ramses. Are men property of the State, or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.”

Yes, today, and not just where “The Ten Commandments” is set — throughout the Middle East in countries such as Egypt — but also here in America as we watch an ever-growing federal government burden us with debt and chip away at our liberties. I’m not comparing Egypt’s current struggle with our own in any way other than how DeMille’s use of this universal theme speaks in some way to everyone and will for as long as there’s a civilization. As his epic unfolds, this is the theme DeMille holds on to, straight through to the story’s final line of dialogue — Moses’ (Charlton Heston) parting words to Joshua (John Derek) before he joins the God who has put him through so much:

“Go. Proclaim liberty throughout all the lands, unto all the inhabitants there of.”

Last week I watched the entire film straight through twice, once on the big-screen at a special event commemorating the film’s Blu-ray release, and again just a few days later on the actual Blu-ray. The finest compliment I can pay one of Hollywood’s all-time great epics is that I could watch it again tonight and enjoy it just as much. DeMille’s world is so vivid, so detailed and all consuming, that after spending nearly four hours visiting, you just want to return to lose yourself into it again and again. The story stays with you for days and you truly do miss spending time with those wonderfully drawn characters.

What’s most remarkable about the new Blu-ray is that it is easily the most beautiful film I’ve ever screened on television. Though the print I saw in the theatre Thursday night was a full, frame by frame restoration and jaw-dropping all on its own, the Blu-ray is, impossibly, even more beautiful. The VistaVision widescreen Technicolor pops right off the screen in ways I didn’t think possible. The richness of the colors, the stability of the blacks, and the details of everything, including fabrics and architecture, pull you deeper and deeper into the world of the film. The work DeMille put into the look of each frame is detailed in a terrific 75-minute “making of” documentary included only with the Blu-ray gift set, and my guess is that even the director himself never saw his work displayed as beautifully as this Blu-ray.

After watching “The Ten Commandments” at home Sunday afternoon, I made the mistake of screening Errol Flynn’s “Robin Hood.” Suddenly, what was once my favorite-looking film on DVD now looks positively wan in comparison. I’m not happy about that at all.

Also included in the pricey but well-worth-it Blu-ray gift set is DeMille’s original 1923 silent version of “The Ten Commandments,” which I’d never seen before and is well worth a look. Only the first hour covers the actual story of Moses and except for the visual splendor of all those magnificent sets and the parting of the Red Sea, it’s the least interesting part of the film. The problem is that it unfolds like a moving pop-up book hitting on the beats of Moses’ journey but without all the palace intrigue, character development and complicated relationships that make the 1956 version so addictive. The remaining 90 minutes, however, are set in 1920s America and tell the compelling story of two brothers who love the same woman. One is good and a believer in God. The other rejects God and is so rigid in his non-belief he destroys himself while in the process of proving life can be good if you dedicate yourself to violating the Commandments.

Not being a silent film fan, I popped in the 1923 version only out of a reviewer’s obligation and even then busied myself with something else while it played in the background. About two hours in, I realized I was missing something special, started the whole picture over again and sat there spellbound until two in the morning. That doesn’t happen very often.

The gift set is gorgeous, a real treasure-trove, and not only includes the “making of” documentary and the 1923 film version (on Blu-ray), but also a wonderful hardcover photo book and a replica of the 1956 souvenir program. There’s also a set of cards with costume sketches of all the main players and some truly fascinating archival reproductions that include a wonderful hand-written letter Charlton Heston sent to “Mr. DeMille,” a man he obviously held an enormous amount of personal affection and respect for. Using footage from 2002, Heston also appears in the “making of” documentary, and again, it’s always “MISTER DeMille.” To command that kind of respect from a man like Charlton Heston is quite the compliment.

I know that there are those who accuse the film of being campy, but I see it more as something that’s larger-than-life. Anne Baxter’s frequent use of “Moses, Moses…” catches most of the flack but let me tell you, when she turns evil in the third act it is very effective. Another performance poked fun at is Edward G. Robinson’s Dathan, but I find him hilarious in the way I think I’m supposed to. He’s so unashamed of being a scumbag that when he’s dancing like a Goldwyn Girl in front of the golden calf, I practically fall out of my chair. I think it’s a marvelous performance by a genius actor who added something no one else could.

At the center of it all, though, stand two giants. If it’s impossible to see anyone but Heston playing Moses (and it is), it is even more impossible to see anyone but Yul Brynner as Ramses II. Not only is he a convincing and formidable antagonist to a man able to summon the very power of God, but DeMille’s direction of this character is absolutely brilliant. Repeatedly, Ramses is slighted by the woman he wants and even his own father, and yet never once does DeMille cut away to a reaction shot of Brynner looking wounded. And yet, thanks to Brynner’s extraordinary screen presence, Ramses is never one-dimensional. But because DeMille never asked us to sympathize with him, when he’s finally beaten, when he finally says, “His God is God,” it is an unforgettable defeat that might prove the power of God even more than the parting of all that water.

Though God is obviously DeMille’s star, Heston is the sun around which everything else revolves. His ability to speak some very difficult lines with complete sincerity is probably the greatest testament to his abilities as an actor. For any actor, that kind of straightforward dialogue, much of it spoken as grand proclamations, is a tightrope without a net. The risk of looking foolish is enormous and yet Heston never comes close. It’s a legendary and iconic performance no amount of words can do justice.

The rest of the cast is just as perfect. Yvonne DeCarlo is simply breathtaking as Moses’ shepherd wife Sephora; Nina Foch is utterly believable as Bithiah, Pharaoh’s sister and Moses’ adopted mother; Cedric Hardwicke as Pharaoh gives humor and humanity to a real monster; Vincent Price as Baka the builder is deliciously sleazy; and Martha Scott as Moses’ birth mother Yochabel is the perfect contrast to Bithiah. Finally, there’s John Carradine as Moses’ brother Aaron — a presence and voice all his own; John Derek and Debra Paget as star-crossed lovers; and Lisa Mitchell as one of Jethro’s beautifully innocent daughters — a lovely woman I met at the screening who along with Heston’s son Fraser (who plays the Baby Moses), carries the torch of the film’s legacy wherever she goes. Her stories, insight and anecdotes are a real highlight of the “making of” documentary.

And don’t get me started on Elmer Bernstein’s PERFECT score, which has been stuck in my head for nearly a week.

Soon, I’ll watch the film again in order to enjoy the full feature-length commentary by Kathryn Orrison (who I also met at the screening), author of “Written in Stone: Making Cecil B. DeMille’s Epic The Ten Commandments.” Unfortunately, I just didn’t have time for a third screening, but the commentary I did hear during my five favorite scenes/sequences…

1. Moses meets his birth mother for the first time
2. The Burning Bush
3. The final plague/Passover
4. The Exodus from Egypt and parting of the Red Sea
5. The juxtaposition between God’s writing of the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai and the G-rated orgy around the golden calf.

…was some of the best I’ve ever heard. She knows everything and obviously has enormous respect for the film and all of those who made it possible.

It was 1980 and I was 14 years-old. On Easter weekend, my brother, who was only a baby at the time, broke his leg in a freak accident and was hospitalized for almost a week. Obviously, we all held vigil around the clock and I’ll never forget sitting in a waiting room all by myself on Easter Sunday as ABC broadcast “The Ten Commandments” in its entirety over five hours. It was such an awful situation for our family and yet here was this deceptively small story playing out against an epic backdrop to keep me company. Fourteen is an impressionable age and how lucky was I to have experienced such a powerful lesson in faith, courage and freedom?

What I’m most grateful for is that repeated viewings never diminish the power of MISTER DeMille’s final film to inspire, entertain, and teach. What I’m not especially happy about, though, is that this Blu-ray transfer is so drop dead gorgeous, that I’m now likely to become dissatisfied with an embarrassingly large DVD collection I’ve spent two decades and a ton of money building.

“The Ten Commandments” Blu-ray was released today. You can choose between the gift set – which I reviewed here,  the two-disc special edition Blu-ray, or the two-disc DVD.

“The Adjustment Bureau” is all things to all people. For sci-fi fans it’s based on (though largely changed from) a short story by Philip K. Dick,who wrote “Blade Runner.” For thriller fans, it’s written and directed by one of the writers of “Ocean’s 12” and “The Bourne Ultimatum.” For comedy fans, the dialogue is witty and fresh, and for romantics, it’s a love story. 

The Adjustment Bureau is the story of David Norris (Matt Damon), a young politician on the verge of becoming one of New York’s senators. A chance meeting with a ballerina named Elise (Emily Blunt) threatens to ruin his dreams however, when the agents of Fate itself step in and try to steer him back onto the political course outlined for him, and away from the woman he loves. Ultimately, they give him a choice: a chance to change the world, or the freedom to be with the woman he loves. 

I’m typically not a fan of films that are written and directed by the same person. Having a director who can reign in a writer, or who knows how to edit out needless dialogue or scenes is essential. Unless you’ve got the talent of George Nolfi, who has kept the dialogue real throughout the film. 

The acting is solid. Damon and Blunt play off each other expertly, and the agents of fate are neither friendly or villainous. They are doing their job. 

The agents of Fate, an individual who is never shown and only referred to as the Chairman, do their job almost as government employees – in a clinical, methodical manner. They slip up and make mistakes like everyone else. These “angels” as they say some have called them, are neither good nor bad. They are the force that keeps the world from coming unhinged, and they can be interpreted easily as a super-secret government organization of Orwellian proportions or as the servants of the Almighty. This neutrality leaves questions of whether their actions are right or wrong to the audience. 

Aside from the philosophical question of fate and free will as the foundation of the film, which I enjoyed, the film was refreshingly non-political. While Damon’s character is a Democrat, political viewpoints are ignored. In addition, while the film can be viewed as a commentary on the ultimate in big government, it can just as easily be compared to God and religion. Ultimately, it’s a film that viewers can walk away from with either a happy contentment, or enough thought food to digest for a week. 

And that’s how Nolfi wanted it. In an interview with reporters recently in Washington, D.C., Nolfi, who has a background in philosophy and political science, said, “I didn’t set out to write anything religious.” But added, “Any version of fate has some sense of a higher power if you want to take it literally.” 

Nolfi said that he was careful to ensure that the Bureau could be easily interpreted as a metaphor for overbearing institutions like governments. And in advanced screenings in Europe, that’s how audiences viewed it. 

“I probably talked to 150 people in London, Dublin, Berlin,” he said. “Not a single person said ‘is this religious?’ Here everybody asks me. There, nobody.” 

Europe’s take aside, Nolfi said that in the U.S., among religious viewers, the film has received a strong response. 

Whatever your views on religion, or taste in film, The Adjustment Bureau has something for everyone. And as a story free from the nuisance of political preaching and filled with good acting, writing and story, it’s one I highly recommend.

—–

Dick’s books and stories have served as the fodder for some of Hollywood’s most striking films of the past three decades, including the timeless classic “Blade Runner.” In them, he addresses issues of free will and consciousness, and how much control we really have over our lives and destinies. That theme has never been laid out as strongly as it has in “Bureau,” which is a must-see film not only for film buffs of any stripe but especially for Christian filmgoers who wonder why Hollywood doesn’t deal with spiritual matters in a deep and meaningful way and bemoan the lack of entertainment value in independent Christian films that often don’t know how to entertain.

Nolfi has hit this one out of the park, and he has been involved in a massive national outreach to Christian churches and colleges designed to alert them to this extremely worthy film. He sat down for a phone interview with Big Hollywood and discussed the magic of his movie.

BIG HOLLYWOOD: How were you drawn to this subject matter? Were you just a fan of Philip K. Dick, or was there a spiritual element?

GEORGE NOLFI: I’ve long been fascinated with the question of how much we control our own destiny or how much we’re controlled by larger forces. When I think of that question it’s not explicitly theological, though I think that’s one of the answers. I studied philosophy in grad school and it intertwines with theology. Is it social forces, like what family you’re born into, or God’s plan for you that shapes your life most? We’re set on a path by something much bigger than ourselves, and yet we also know we have choices and that they matter.

BH: Are you spiritual or religious yourself, and if so, how did that tie into the project, and if not, how did you find a grasp on this and did you realize this would resonate with Christian audiences in addition to secular ones?

GN: I’ve not talked about my personal views because of this reason: I want the movie to be viewed by people whether religious or not or whatever religion they are. I want them to engage with the central question bringing their faith and views and grappling to the table. So when they leave, the question of how much of your life is handled by outside forces and how much by you is key, and that has been around since the ancient Greeks. I just want to have people have a great time at the movies in a romantic thriller with a sci-fi tinge to it all, leaving with their own questions brought to the table.

As a kid I’ve been interested in this issue. I studied it in college and graduate school, and studied various ways people grapple with that. My own family background dealt with it as well. I was also fascinated with the problem of evil in theology and if there’s a higher power that’s all powerful, benevolent and all knowing, then why do bad things happen to good people?

I think that for religious people period, but certainly Christian audiences, it is a part of their daily life to engage in discussions of why are we here. I don’t think that necessarily people who are completely secular deal with those issues, but I think it’s almost impossible to be a religious person without struggling with this issue. It’s ultimately a movie about a character going through character changes. It’s a thriller, a sci-fi tinged one, and hopefully you’re on that ride. But it does have these issues, and i thought it would have extra interest to those who struggle with it on a daily basis.

BH: What do you feel the message of the film is regarding free will vs. predetermined life? What are your own opinions on that? Matt Damon has done two big films in the last few months about these heavy metaphysical/spiritual topics, with this and “Hereafter,” so do you know what the appeal is to him and if the films have affected his view of life and death?

GN: I’ve never found a satisfactory answer that it’s one over the other, it has to be both. It doesn’t make sense to me to say the path for me is set and cant’ change it, and can’t say that I’m superman and can make my life exactly what I want it to be. There are forces that affect us, be it a Higher Power or social class of our family – a wealthy family in Connecticut vs. a poor family in Egypt. There are a lot of ways to view the things that affect the path we’re put on.

I can’t speak for Matt’s personal spiritual life, but Matt is a complex and engaged person who cares about raising complex questions and making the world a better place. He should never be pigeonholed.

BH: What has been the response of Christian audiences? Was it what you expected or are you surprised? How are the debates it sets off?

GN: They’ve responded very strongly. I’ve personally been at 5 screenings and nobody leaves the theater and the discussion goes on for an hour or more.

BH: Did you get a lot of challenges from studios or producers about touching this kind of subject matter? It seems that as Christians have embraced “Passion of the Christ” and I think more importantly “The Blind Side,” studios are starting to open up and be more willing to release films appealing to that audience.

GN: Nobody interfered with the vision of the movie at all, which surprised me. Matt Damon backed me and believes in backing the director’s vision. The studio was also aware of the movie they signed up for, crossing genres.

[Ed. Note: Big Hollywood's Kurt Schlichter did a positive screenplay review of "Adjustment Bureau."]

The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

This statement, and several other things about his article, dismayed me.  However, his article was also instructive for those who want to look beyond its text.  I’ll get to that in a moment.

But first, why did Mr. Gervais and the media choose to release this article right before Christmas?  Nice timing.  Very respectful.  Why is it that Joy Behar storms off her own show because Bill O’Reilly makes a statement about Muslims and everyone cheers her, yet nobody has a problem with Mr. Gervais insulting Christians?  Mind you, it doesn’t bother me that his statement bothers people.  In fact, those who believe in God (regardless of religious affiliation) should welcome such a challenge. It’s the timing that is disrespectful.

Second, there’s an arrogance that oozes throughout the piece.  Mr. Gervais is so insistent that he is right – a trait often exuded by those on the Left — that he subsequently relies on faulty logic and a few bad childhood experiences to bolster his case.

Third, this is just more of the same from Hollywood: the constant denigration of those who believe in God.  Don’t believe me?  Name ten films out of the thousands produced since 1980 that presented a positive theme about faith in God — not faith in general, or a feel-good spirituality, but the G-word.   Now name ten films in which a person who believed in God was cast as a villain.  Then take it to television.  It’s even worse there.

This is done despite the fact that on any given Sunday morning, you will find over 100 million Christians in the same type of building — a church.  The vast majority of people in this country identify themselves as Christian.  Yet Hollywood does not seem interested in making more money and generating higher ratings by actually delivering content that reflects the values of the majority of this country.

There’s one more item regarding Mr. Gervais’s article that is instructive for all of us.  He’s just wrong.  God’s existence cannot be proven or disproved via objective means.  Therefore, His existence (or lack thereof) is a strictly subjective determination.

To decide whether I was right or Mr. Gervais is right, I took our statements to a friend from college who happens to be a Christian scholar.  I handed him both statements without attribution.   Here is his reply:

There are very few matters that are truly “objective”.  The only ones would be mathematical truths, but everything else is evidential in nature.  For instance, how do we know that George Washington was the first president?  This cannot be determined “objectively” because we have to depend on written documents handed down to us from many sources.  There is ample good evidence that he was first president, so I believe it wholeheartedly, but it cannot be proved in a theoretical, absolute sense, only evidentially.  Indeed, this is how our court system works.

We don’t have to have 100% certitude to have knowledge.

So, what is the evidence for God?  What evidences for or against God do you find compelling?  Some say an absolute good being cannot exist because there is evil in the world.  There is archeological evidence surrounding the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, so how does one interpret all of that?  We should each go through all the evidence and make a judgment.  Many will not do it because they find it too threatening to their way of life, because let’s face it, if God exists, it has enormous implications for this life and the next.

We must make a judgment. In other words, God’s existence is indeed a strictly subjective determination.  Argument resolved.

This is what irritated me about Mr. Gervais’s statement.  We can have knowledge but not 100% certitude about something.  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t test our knowledge, however, to see how certain we are about something.

A lot of people tromp around all day making illogical statements, having built a subjective reality based upon “knowledge” that has not been tested.  In my experience, Conservatives, more often than not, do their best to test their knowledge with logic prior to forming an opinion.  Liberals are fueled by emotion, resulting in more questionable knowledge from which they form their opinions.

Ironic, isn’t it, that they are the ones who rely more on faith in their knowledge?

Happy New Year, and remember, a closed mouth catches no flies.