The Spiritual Tether of Gravity We Cling To Against Our Own Tether Of Helplessness

 

 

  

 

 

Gravity - Official Main Trailer [2K HD]

 

 

 

 

 

Gravity: You Don’t Know What You’ve Got Until It’s Gone

http://reknew.org/2013/10/gravity-you-dont-know-what-youve-got-until-its-gone/

 

by Greg Boyd

October 14, 2013

 

I had read a number of reviews about the movie “Gravity,” so when Shelley and I decided to enjoy a mid-week date night at the movies, I entered the theater with some pretty high expectations. The movie more than exceeded all those expectations.

 

“Gravity” is an off-the-charts intense thriller, made all the more exciting because the fate the two main characters (played by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney) must constantly fight is the horrifying prospect of floating off alone into deep space with nothing else to do but watch their oxygen level slowly run out – pretty much like being buried alive in slow motion! Yet, this was one of those rare nail-biters that managed to leave emotional space for some truly poignant moments, sprinkled in with several splendid moments of comedic release.

 

On top of this, I thought the cinematography was absolutely Oscar worthy. It’s not just that the backdrop of the earth and an endless star-filled sky throughout the movie is breath taking. Even more impressive was the remarkably realistic way that people and objects are depicted as violently interacting with each other in zero-gravity space. So too, the use of distance and silence to draw you into Ryan’s feeling of lonely despair as she twirls helplessly out into deep space was nothing short of brilliant. (By the way, this is a movie you must see in 3D. More than half the thrill will be lost otherwise). And, finally, while both Clooney and Bullock were great, I felt that Bullock in particular knocked it out of the park! This was by far her best performance. Bullock masterfully pulls you into the depth of the darkness her character experiences as she faces the likelihood of dying alone, as well as the darkness she has been enveloped in since the tragically random death of her beloved four-year-old daughter years ago.

 

Which brings me to the aspect of this movie that I felt outshined everything I’ve said so far. The most profound aspect of this movie was the way it wove together two stories, the first about two astronauts struggling to survive against all odds after suffering a catastrophe in space, the second about a woman trying against all odds to find a reason to go on living after suffering a catastrophe on earth. And the thing that made this weaving so brilliant was that, at every turn, the first story symbolized the second. And the thematic cord that tied them together was gravity.

 

Interesting title, especially when you consider that the whole movie is without it. And that, you’ll find, is the point. Every problem the two astronauts confront is because they lack gravity. Without gravity, we humans are vulnerable to random chaos flung at us by forces much greater than ourselves. Without gravity, we are threatened with the possibility of floating off into nothingness. Without gravity, we desperately cling to anything, or anyone, to save us from the infinite void. (The intensity of almost every thrill scene is due to the tenuous nature of the grasp that keeps the astronauts from floating away – or not). We learn that this is precisely the condition Ryan has been living in since her daughter’s death. Lacking any foundation to hold her in place, her grasp on life is tenuous, with the void threatening to sweep her away. As she spins helplessly into the void, in one scene, we are watching a woman whose external environment perfectly reflects the state of her soul. If you keep your eyes open, you’ll find the symbolism runs throughout, and it’s powerful.

 

Finally, and most interesting of all from my perspective, there is a theological dimension to the way these two stories are woven together. I felt the question of God’s existence was already being raised by the way this movie repeatedly depicted horrendously destructive events by forces that were utterly indifferent to the welfare of humans taking place against the backdrop of the breathtaking beauty of the earth and stars. But the question becomes much more explicit as the astronauts continue to talk into their radios in the unlikely hope that someone “out there” can hear them. Here too the story of the plight of Ryan in space symbolizes the story of Ryan’s soul, for we are again seeing into the soul of a woman who has always wanted to cry out for “someone out there.” She just didn’t know how, and didn’t know if it would do any good even if she did.

 

On both a physical and spiritual level, Ryan longs for gravity. As to whether she finds it or not, that will be for you to decide.

See more at: http://reknew.org/2013/10/gravity-you-dont-know-what-youve-got-until-its-gone/#sthash.k6lD07uw.dpuf

 

 

 

 

Gravity - "I've Got You" [HD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Star War's Sense of Mission in the Bible: "May the Force Be With You"

 

The Star Wars Reboot and the Bible

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/08/15/jeff-cook-could-believing-in-god-harm-your-soul/

 

by Jeff Cook

Oct 14, 2013

Comments

 

Nerd out with me, and watch the video posted below. I resonated with these observations and found that all four apply well to why we love the Bible and how we should read it.

 

Rule #1: The setting is the frontier.

 

Star Wars doesn’t happen in the city. It doesn’t happen in parliament, or in the library. It happens out here away from civilization amidst smugglers and bounty hunters. Star Wars is a western and it’s set in the frontier.

 

So too, the Bible is written in times of hardship–not at a seminary, monastery or a common church building.

 

Most of the Bible was edited and composed by those in distress after the symbol of their faith–the Temple–had been torn apart (either in 587 BC for the Old Testament or 70 AD for the New). The writers picture both the desolation as well as a whole new world arriving. The setting is the frontier and there is deep anticipation of God’s future.

 

Rule # 2: The future is old.

 

Star Wars beauty isn’t clean. It isn’t new. It’s dirty, gritty, a second hand world. The beauty of the frontier.

 

So too, We discover new and progressive truths in the ancient when we read the scriptures. The soul-moving beauties presented by God are often wrapped in disease, politics and blood. In order to love the Bible, I must get my mind covered in muck and my heart aware of God’s voice in the alleyways and truck stops.

 

The Bible is not clean! it is graphic literature that uses foul imagery to display the grand and abiding grace of God.

 

Rule 3: The Force is mysterious.

 

We don’t always need an explanation. The greatest power of the Force is it’s sense of magic. That comes from the unknown.

 

Christians–especially those who do work like I do–consistently fall victim to this trap (and yes “it’s a trap”).

 

The Author of reality doesn’t explain everything in neat little package (thankfully). One of the primary attributes of the real God is that He so often hides, speaking through donkeys and storms and flaming bushes in seemingly random, brief encounters. The God of the Bible allows tension and longing and hopes finally realized. This is true not only in the text but in the lives of the faithful today.

 

As such, we lose the real God when we make God’s work and priorities systematic and obvious–the result of mere deduction. The real God is like the wind, said Jesus, blowing where he wishes–sometimes cooling our brows, sometimes igniting small sparks into a wildfire.

 

If we make following Jesus about Jedi “midi-chlorian levels” we lose huge and no one will care.

 

Rule 4: Star Wars isn’t cute.

 

Walk into the wrong bar, lose your arm. Don’t pay your debts, end up in carbonite. The frontier is a dangerous place. It’s never cute or silly. It’s not child proofed. It’s freakin’ Star Wars – and Han always shoots first.

 

What world do you think we live in?!?

 

The common portrait of life on earth in the Bible is a spiritual war zone, overrun with villains, troubles and a soul-infecting disease unleashed on humanity that will crush everything we care for if God does not act.

 

Jesus’ charge–perhaps the words he said more than any others– was “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” In other words, we live in enemy occupied territory, a revolution is underway, and we are invited to flip the world right side up again through an ancient and decisive force: we are to embrace this force at every turn; we are to lean in to it because this force never fails.

 

Resurrecting, cruciform love is the power of the living God–the force that binds the galaxy together. Christ’s love has been unleashed into our world, and in the end everything will be transformed by its power and scope.

 

The Bible isn’t cute. Its a subversive manifesto in the midst of a dangerous world inviting us to throw off every chain of the present regime for the easy yoke offered by the world’s true heir.

 

 

Jeff Cook pastors Atlas Church in Greeley Colorado. He teaches philosophy at UNC and is the author of Everything New: One Philosopher’s Search for a God Worth Believing In. @jeffvcook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Movie Review: Prometheus Decoded, Part 1

Big things have small beginnings

An Introduction

I think we will have some fun with the movie Prometheus and to do so we must be introduced to its labyrinth of characters, themes, backgrounds and plots.

Last night I decided I would be brave and go watch Ridley Scott's latest epic. When arriving to the theater I discovered that I was completely alone in a very dark, and suspiciously empty movie theater. Later I would find out that 300 or so patrons were two auditoriums over watching Ted leaving me to contend with stark images and surreptitiously heart-pounding soundtracks utterly alone in the dark caverns of my mind and heart. (Which I loved immensely by the way! Usually I like to listen to audiences responses, but with this film all I really wanted was reflective time alone for an intense engagement and scrutiny!).

Well... I got my wish. And it was a thrill ride from start to end as I analyzed from the producers viewpoint, and the would-be audience's point-of-view, our society's taboos and speculations, of the many popular themes of science, evolution, space travel, alien mutations, biologic warfare, the pathos of the human dilemma, our societal stories of ourselves, our purpose and the meaning of our existence. As Bill and Ted would say, "Most Excellent!"

Overall, the best part of my experience was that I was completely ignorant of the film's themes, its connections to other films, and intents. I got to see it on its own, as a virgin premiere unspoiled by critics and friend's presumptions alike! Normally I try to isolate myself from any initial thoughts and critiques of a movie until after I've had a time to see it on my own. Which is pretty unusual in this day and age but still possible if you resist movie trailers, reviews and go see a film on its first day's opening.

So to begin with, we must interview a few movie critics in-the-know (I also read Wikipedia's information as well) before we can begin any analysis. So here is the first part of perhaps one or more articles to be posted speaking to some of the broader implications at hand (and I suspect even a few more which we haven't yet thought about... like biomedical ethics, species extermination, information technology uses and abuses, the rapid propogation of technological revolution through AI, computers and swarmbots, etc). So sit back and enjoy the ride!

R.E. Slater

June 22, 2012

  

Prometheus Full Trailer 2

Wikipedia - The Greek Titan Prometheus who fell to Earth condemned by Olympus for sharing the fire of the gods with man that man may be equal to the gods of the cosmos - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus.

Prometheus: The Rockefeller Center, NYC, NY

Wikipedia - Prometheus is a 2012 American science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(film).

Ridley Scott directing Nooma Rapace

Movies

Prometheus Decoded: Connecting Ridley Scott’s Dots (in Three Minutes or Less)

By Steven James Snyder | @thesnydes | June 11, 2012

A stunning star field fills a cavernous alien spaceship.

Warning: Major, epic, devastating spoilers throughout

and beginning immediately!

Prometheus weekend came and went, but the speculation rages on. I first saw the film nearly two weeks ago, and was left stunned by the post-film deliberation among critics that broke out at the Times Square movie theater. The next day, I interviewed screenwriter Damon Lindelof (he sheds some light on the film’s secrets here), and he described a very similar post-premiere scene at his London theater. And I’ve heard from other friends across the country that the debate was alive and well at screenings both Friday and Saturday, among Alien fans trying to connect all of Ridley Scott’s dots.

Now I’m not presuming to have all the answers (for a more thorough, expert take, see Richard Corliss’ comprehensive review or Jeffrey Kluger’s analysis of the science behind Prometheus), but here is the analysis I pitched in, during the great New York Critics Prometheus Debate of 2012: Obviously this is an Alien prequel – regardless of what the movie studio may be claiming — and the most interesting plot points in Prometheus do indeed stem from the through-line of the franchise. In other words: How does this piece of the Alien puzzle connect to the other films in the franchise?

Warning, major spoilers ahead: The film opens with an alien standing above a waterfall. (Maybe to keep things straight later, we’ll call his/her species ETs). A spaceship is taking off in the background, clearly leaving this ET behind. He’s the chap who must have signed up to be the “engineer,” agreeing to sacrifice his life in order to fuel an entirely new civilization. He drinks his mysterious substance, self-destructs, and his DNA is injected into Earth’s ecosystem. All life as we know it derives from that sacrifice.

(MORE: See TIME’s complete Prometheus coverage)

It’s a powerful prologue — and also one that doesn’t deviate all that far from the current scientific debate about what brought life to the planet (see Jeffrey Kluger’s full breakdown of the science in Prometheus). From here, let’s jump forward to the mystery planet: When the Prometheus crew lands, everything appears to be dead or dormant — a vast series of deserted caverns and creepy cargo holds. David, the resident robot, has been programmed to assess these discoveries with only one objective in mind: How might these futuristic beings, and their futuristic technologies, be harnessed and utilized to aid his maker — the dying Mr. Weyland.

This is why David extracts, analyzes and manipulates the metallic orbs found in the cargo holds, why he drops a bit of the black goo into Charlie’s drink. David is trying to do anything — everything — to these precious alien artifacts to resurrect mankind’s ancestors. It is here where David utters the memorable line “big things have small beginnings,” and indeed the entire Alien universe as we know it can be traced back to this singling decision — the mingling of this exotic DNA with human DNA.

[as aside, I saw David as a modern day type of HAL without compassion or real knowledge of the mystery of man. He was brilliant but a very sloppy and over eager symbiont monster in his own rite. - res]

Now this black ooze is not the alien life-force as we’ve come to know it in other Alien movies. This black substance is essentially a biological weapon. A weapon of mass destruction. For some reason, which (beautifully enough) is left as a mystery in Prometheus, the ETs who created humans, and gave sentient life to Earth, later decided to return to our solar system to kill us off. These metal orbs, and the black ooze inside, is the weapon they designed. They were created to exterminate us. And in the many holographic flashbacks that we watch, it appears as if the weapons activated early and killed all the ETs by mistake.

David, though, lets that cat out of the bag. He helps Charlie to consume the weapon and, sure enough, the weapon destroys the human. Just as designed. David is delighted, though, to find that Charlie had sex with Elizabeth during his infection, resulting in a mutation: A fetus derived of both human and weaponized DNA. In the film’s most gruesome, but absolutely essential scene, Elizabeth extracts the mutant fetus (never thought I’d get to write that phrase!). She initially thinks she’s killed the creature, but it continues to grow and thrive outside our view.

(MORE: Prometheus, Before Watchmen and the Tricky Art of the Prequel)

Meanwhile back on the alien warship, David is waking up the mummified ETs, eager to introduce them to his boss. When the pilot awakens, he picks right up where he left off — plotting to blast off from this barren planet, carrying his payload right into the heart of our solar system. For this planet is not his home; as other characters carefully describe, this is just a forward operating base. A planet where weapons can be built and tested.

As Elizabeth pieces the puzzle together, she realizes what’s at stake: Her crew has traveled across the universe only to reawaken the sleeping enemy. She tells Janek that he has to scuttle Prometheus, and destroy the alien craft, before it can take off. Which he does, killing all the humans onboard.

At this point in the tale, only five creatures still exist: Corporate lackey Meredith Vickers, scientist Elizabeth Shaw, the wounded ET pilot, the mutant fetus, and David’s severed robotic head, still functioning apart from his torso. The crashing warship kills Meredith. Then Elizabeth flees the escape pod, ensuring that the mutant fetus leaches onto the body of the ET pilot. The closing shot of the film witnesses the end result of this altercation: The birth of the alien creature, as we know it in Alien — an ultra mutation, derived from an ET body and a human DNA-weaponized DNA fetus. An entirely new life form, that will systematically lay eggs across the planet’s surface and multiply, until Nostromo arrives years later with Sigourney Weaver onboard.

(Update, 9:20 am: A trusted colleague has informed me that I have this all wrong — that Nostromo lands on a different planet, one which apparently has another of these ET ships sitting around. I think I’ll need to go back and watch Alien again tonight, and see which planet they refer to, in the opening discussions. But assuming he’s right, and I’m wrong, this is a pretty wild plot twist in and of itself. How did these alien mutants manage to spread across the universe? I feel a sequel coming on)

David, partly in a bid to save himself and partly because he finds Elizabeth a curiosity, lets her in on some of his observations: Yes, there are indeed other alien ships here [(as witnessed to by the several other temples laid out in a grid behind the first temple the astronauts were exploring - res)], and he knows how to fly them. He suggests going back to Earth, and she says she wants to find the ET home world. So they take flight, going who knows where (cough, sequel!), leaving the planet to the ultra mutant. The era of the Alien begins. [Wikipedia gives a fuller discussion here - res]

Or anyway that’s the way I read Prometheus — until I see it a second (or possibly third) time. How did you guys solve the riddle? Agree with this assessment? Where have I been led astray?

Steven James Snyder is a Senior Editor at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @thesnydes. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page, on Twitter at @TIME and on TIME’s Tumblr.

Read other related stories about this:

• Prometheus Review - Spectacular Sci-Fi CNN
• Prometheus Box Office Nearly $4 Million In Midnight Screenings EW.com
• Prometheus: Noomi Rapace the Next Sigourney Weaver? Los Angeles Times

Movies

Prometheus, an Epic Cinematic Puzzle: TIME Talks to the Screenwriter Behind the Secrets

By Steven James Snyder | @thesnydes | June 8, 2012 |

Michael Fassbender as David

If my post-screening discussion is any indication, Prometheus will be one of the most hotly debated films of the year.

Typically, film critics are in a rush to flee the theater after the credits. Particularly if it’s an evening screening, there is commuting to do, deadlines to meet and families to see. That’s what made the scene last week in Times Square that much more remarkable—following Prometheus, dozens of members of the New York press corps lingered in the theater hallway afterwards to debate the Meaning Of It All. And to float their theories about an enigmatic, universe-spanning plot that will have fanboys debating the origins of the alien species—not to mention the origins for mankind—for months to come.

The same night I was discussing the significance of Prometheus (alongside TIME’s film critic Richard Corliss, who has already published his review of the blockbuster) in New York, Damon Lindelof, the film’s expressive co-writer, was witnessing his first post-screening reaction with an audience in London. Widely known for his work on the TV series Lost, and also for serving as producer on the hit reboot of Star Trek, Lindelof said he came to Prometheus when the script was already well underway, reportedly reworking a first draft to add depth and mystique to a story that was already overflowing with Alien franchise references.

(MORE: See TIME’s complete coverage of Prometheus)

When I finally managed to wrestle away from the Great Times Square Prometheus Debate (watch for our analysis of the plot’s secrets early Monday morning), I had to give Lindelof props: If he was hoping to dust off a worn-down franchise, and restore some sense of wonder of curiosity, he sure got the job done. The movie studio may be hesitant to call Prometheus a “prequel,” but it is—in the best possible sense. It expands and deepens the mythology, adds complexity to the characters and decisions that are to come and colors the whole Alien universe in a shade of dark irony. Unlike the Star Wars prequels, here’s an early chapter that might entice me to look at the later ones slightly differently.

TIME talked to Lindelof about rethinking Prometheus’ alien appeal, working with director Ridley Scott, and the fine art of allowing moviegoers to connect the dots:

TIME: I’m trying to put myself in your shoes. This has to be incredibly stressful, to step into a franchise as storied as Alien and be asked to breathe new life into it. Were you intimidated?

Lindelof: Oh yeah. Are you kidding me? It adds a tremendous amount of pressure. I came in cold from the outside, and when I first read Jon Spaihts’ draft, I sent in a draft to Ridley (Scott), and I said: ‘I think there’s some really great ideas here, but almost a little too much Alien…too much cowbell.’ So I stripped almost all of it out, chucked it out entirely, and then I looked at the tent poles in the film, where we would need those elements to come back, and put back just the right amount. It’s almost like if you go to a U2 show, what songs do they have to play to give the U2 experience? If I leave the concert and they haven’t played ‘With or Without You,’ I’m going to be ticked. There are certain songs that have to be on that set list, and it’s the same when you’re talking about an Alien film: Do you need to see a xenomorph bursting out of the human body? And how do we do it in a way that you haven’t seen before? It’s sort of like playing ‘With or Without You’ but bringing B.B. King on stage and mixing it up with an African drum circle so that it’s a familiar tune, but a whole different song.

I think it’s safe to say that you rose above the ‘Greatest Hits’ here. The people outside our screening couldn’t stop talking about it; what was it like for you, to see it for the first time with a general audience? Did you deliberately set out to create something enigmatic?

Well, that’s one of the first questions I was asking myself when I got the phone call. Ridley wanted me to read the script he was developing, and I thought: ‘Good God, why me? He must have me confused with someone else.’ But when he realized what he was looking for, he was steered towards me, and I certainly agree this is what I do: I’m driven and interested and intrigued by ambiguous storytelling. Almost do-it-yourself. Writing for Ridley, I would often ask him what he wanted to convey in a certain moment, and then I would try to avoid verbalizing that intention. I want the audience to do it themselves. So while this is harder gratification, it’s like the Friday New York Times crossword puzzle—it’s so much harder than Monday’s, but also so much more rewarding.

(MORE: Prometheus and the Complicated Art of the Prequel)

But can you ever push that too far, where it becomes too difficult to enjoy?

Well, when you get in the zone, you can easily do the Monday crossword. But in order to get Friday’s, you almost always have to collaborate with others. And the idea with the movie is that you’re going to want to find others to talk about it with. It’s really no different, if you think about it, than something like Blade Runner. Is Deckard a replicant? During this film, I found myself in the room with Ridley, literally the one person who can answers that question that I’ve been debating for 25 years. And honestly, I don’t want him to tell me. It might shatter my own theory, and having that theory, and that debate, that’s part of the fun of the film.

He’s a replicant, though, right?

I do not think he’s a replicant.

Hm. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Trust me.

(Warning: Slight spoiler ahead) At the end of the day, do you think you accomplished what you set out to do—to make something that was at once faithful and familiar, yet unique?

Definitely. This is very much Ridley Scott’s world, a universe that we’ve seen before. But he’s tried to channel as much of that into the storytelling. Take the opening of the film—it’s this mysterious being who takes this strange substance and then falls apart in front of our eyes. I say to Ridley: ‘So where is he? Is this the planet Earth or another planet entirely?’ He tells me, and then I go: ‘Okay, do you want to tell people that? Should we put up a credit?’ And he says ‘No, don’t do that.’ That’s when I knew we were talking the same language. We want people to try and contextualize, and we believe that people are seeing this for a reason, that they want to connect the dots for themselves. And I think the discussions that have erupted after seeing this movie is proof of that—this is a very, very active viewing experience.

Steven James Snyder is a Senior Editor at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @thesnydes. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page, on Twitter at @TIME and on TIME’s Tumblr.


Read other related stories about this:

• Prometheus Sequel: Damon Lindelof Talks Another Alien Film Hollywood Reporter
• Prometheus Movie Review: A Gorgeous Sci-Fi Thriller Associated Press
• Prometheus and Ridley Scott, Could They Revive Hollywood Sci-Fi? Washington Post

Images of Prometheus

- Go here to this link

More In-Depth Reviews

For a more thorough, expert take, see -

Richard Corliss’ comprehensive review or,

Jeffrey Kluger’s analysis of the science behind Prometheus

My Next Post

Prometheus Rebourned:

Of Xenomorphs and Mankind,

by R.E. Slater

Reviews and Links to "The Hunger Games" - An Emergent Christian Perspective

Engaging The Hunger Games

http://rachelheldevans.com/engaging-the-hunger-games

by Rachel Held Evans

March 23, 2012

Comments

I confess to squealing just a wee bit when I first saw the trailer for "The Hunger Games" movie. Suzanne Collins’ trilogy was the first foray into fiction I enjoyed after a year of research and writing for "A Year of Biblical Womanhood", so I surrendered myself totally to the unfolding stories and, like so many others, lost a lot of sleep as I worked my way through The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and The Mockingjay.

(Dan bought me the series for Christmas, and we were supposed to read the books together, out loud, as we had done the entire Harry Potter series, but Dan kept falling asleep after a few pages, which was completely UNACCEPTABLE to me, so I went on without him. Marital devotion has its limits, I suppose.)

So this is the big week in which the Hunger Games hits the big screen, which means fanatics are indulging themselves in all-things Katniss, Peeta, and Panem.

You can get a Hunger Games tattoo. You can make mockingjay cupcakes. You can check out the latest styles of the Capitol designers at Capitol Couture. You can figure out which district your hometown would fall into in Panem. (I must say, I loved these maps. I think I live in District 12!) You can buy a truly awful Christian t-shirt to wear to the theater. You can even burn calories through a Hunger Games-inspired workout.

Yesterday, when I spotted Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdene on the cover of People Magazine with the headline “THE HUNGER GAMES” in bold white letters, I couldn’t help but wonder if Suzanne Collins set all of this up to remind us of how closely our culture can resemble that of The Capitol—what with our excess, our reality shows, our glorification of violence, and our compulsive need to shove every good story through our celebrity-obsessed media machine.

That’s one of the things I liked best about The Hunger Games. The series, while entertaining, also raises some serious questions about oppression, violence, materialism, entertainment, and justice.

At Red Letter Christians, Marty Troyer wrote an excellent piece about The Hunger Games from a pacifist perspective. Monica Selby, at Her.Meneutics, wrote about why we need dystopian tales. Amy Simpson, for Christianity Today sees Jesus in The Hunger Games.

But my favorite analysis of The Hunger Games has come from the delightful and wise Julie Clawson.

Not only has she written a couple of fantastic articles about The Hunger Games, she’s written an entire book entitled The Hunger Games and the Gospel released this week by Patheos Press.

I admit I am usually skeptical about books that claim to offer a "Christian perspective" on popular culture. But I trust Julie Clawson. And she does not disappoint. Not unlike the Hunger Games series itself, I read The Hunger Games and the Gospel in one sitting. Clawson does a fantastic job of reminding readers that Collins’ world of occupation, oppression, excess, and poverty is not so far removed from our own, and that it is exactly the kind of world in which Jesus himself lived.

Writes Clawson:

"Hunger, poverty, poor health, fear, violence and lack of freedoms are not just elements of fiction, but daily realities in our world. In light of such realities, consider the emotional (and political) impact Jesus must have had when he showed up in Nazareth, a region with a long history of oppression, and proclaimed that he had come to fulfill Isaiah’s prophetic words by releasing the captives and setting the oppressed free. Those words would have been charged with meaning for people living in fear under the Roman tribute system just as they are for people desperate for liberation today. Oppression orchestrates compliance by crushing all hope. Yet Jesus came offering hope and the blessing of the Kingdom of God to those whose spirits had been broken.”

Clawson skillfully and creatively connects the story of The Hunger Games to The Sermon on the Mount with a series of essays that follow the Beatitudes. Check out the chapter titles:

Chapter One: The Poor in Spirit: Living in the United States of Panem

Chapter Two: Those Who Mourn: Remembering the Things It Would Be a Crime to Forget

Chapter Three: The Meek: Supporting One Body, Many Districts

Chapter Four: Those Who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness: Loving Like the Boy with the Bread

Chapter Five: The Merciful: Recognizing the Humanity of Others

Chapter Six: The Pure in Heart: Looking Past Artificial Exteriors

Chapter Seven: The Peacemakers: Subverting the Games of Violence

Chapter Eight: The Persecuted: Finding One’s Voice in a Distracted World

And because Clawson is one of the smartest ladies you’ll ever meet, she’s include a few tidbits, like this one, that you can use to impress your friends:

“It was in frustration at this shallowness among his fellow Romans that the 1st-­?century C.E. satirist Juvenal coined the terms 'panem et circenses' (bread and circuses) to mock those who were too distracted to care about justice or the needs of the oppressed. The handful of Hunger Games readers who happened to take Latin in high school would have been clued in that the series was directly referencing the bread and circuses of ancient Rome. Early on, we read that the country itself is named Panem (bread) and has a tesserae system that provided the districts both food and a higher chance at a ticket to the games (but as participants, not as spectators). But it isn’t until the final book that Plutarch, the ex-Head Gamemaker turned rebel, explains to Katniss that 'in the Capitol, all they’ve ever known is Panem et Circenses,' and, like the Romans, they 'in return for full bellies and entertainment . . . [gave] up their political responsibilities and therefore their power.'"

                      

This was a challenging and engaging treatment of The Hunger Games from a gospel-centered perspective that I highly recommend, especially to Hunger Games fans. You can purchase The Hunger Games and the Gospel here.

A Link to all things Hunger -

http://www.stltoday.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&q=%22Hunger+Games%22&t=article

The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life Movie

Official Trailer (HD)







The Tree of Life - Lacrimosa

From the opening scenes







Lacrimosa (Requiem)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart [lyrics]

The Requiem Mass in D minor by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was composed in Vienna in 1791, during the last year of the composer's life. 'Lacrimosa' is part of that Requiem Mass and -for me- reveals some of the deepest feelings of human beings and one of mankind's biggest fears: Death.

Lacrimosa dies illa                                              Mournful that day

Qua resurget ex favilla                                     When from the ashes shall rise

Judicandus homo reus.                                    Guilty man to be judged.

Lacrimosa dies illa                                               Mournful that day

Qua resurget ex favilla                                      When from the ashes shall rise

Judicandus homo reus.                                     Guilty man to be judged.

Huic ergo parce, Deus:                                      Lord have mercy on him

Pie Jesu Domine.                                                 Gentle Lord Jesus.

Huic ergo parce, Deus:                                      Lord have mercy on him

Pie Jesu Domine.                                                 Gentle Lord Jesus.

Dona eis requiem.                                               Grant them eternal rest.

Dona eis requiem.                                               Grant them eternal rest.

Amen.                                                                       Amen.

Mozart's Requiem-Lacrimosa

lyrics+translation

Alert: Spoilers below

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

If you want to go into Tree of Life as innocent as possible, you may want to avoid the section below and video to follow that discuss some of the themes running through the narrative.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Storyline

The impressionistic story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.Written by alfiehitchie

From Wikipedia

The Tree of Life is a 2011 American drama with experimental elements written and directed by Terrence Malick and starring Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, and Jessica Chastain. Malick's film chronicles the origins and meaning of life by way of a middle-aged man's childhood memories of his family living in 1950s Texas, interspersed with imagery of the origins of the universe and the inception of life on Earth. After decades in development and missed 2009 and 2010 release dates, the film premiered in competition at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, where it won the Palme d'Or. The film received polarizing reactions in response to Malick's use of technical and artistic imagery, directorial style, and fragmented non-linear narrative.

My Review

The Tree of Life can be a tediously long movie at 139 minutes - even for one perhaps sympathetic with its larger-than-life themes. And when confronted with the conflicted human stories interwoven within, the film becomes as personally disturbing, as it is confronting, to our own life stories being lived out in the present tense. Especially when considering the several life angles being explored from the characters' perspectives. For myself, I found it hard to separate between the father's, or the child's, perspectives, each as tragically interlinked with sorrow as with failure, as they are faced with severe personal disappointment, conflict, and a chilling coldness - even numbness - to their loved ones and hurting family members around them.

As the film concludes it leaves one breathing a sigh of relief that it had reached some kind of resolution, however disquieting or incomplete, but at least moving towards some sense of personal comprehension and completion. And at the same time it leaves the viewer with the feeling of not knowing what to do with everything just witnessed on the silver screen. Mostly, the theater is silent, with small expressions of confusion flowing between dumbfounded viewers cloister within their inner sanctums of insanity, as we each filed out quietly, like ones leaving a morgue or a funeral, tragically torn by the grief and death witnessed and shared.

It is only in aftermath's reflection that one feels the better for having viewed the film's portrayals. A view that provides the hard-earned life experiences of individuals detailing personal bitterness and failure. Each uncomfortably absorbed by remorse and truth. And perhaps obtaining a small amount of self-conscious understanding - or dearly needed forgiveness - however ill-timed or belatedly received.

It also left me with the strong feeling that this film should be honestly viewed by every prospective couple contemplating parenthood. Or by every wronged child, now grown. So great its life portraits of our human frailties and misjudgments, aloneness and isolations, misguided plans and benighted resolutions, to that dream of life we had first believed in childhood's innocence and thought we could live. And yet, as the years roll by, we too share in despair's deep lack of unfulfillment when comparing life's once promised beauty until experience ruined its innocence.

This review then does not even begin to touch on the many dizzying thematic elements interwoven throughout the film's length and breadth. One that should first be worked-out by the film-goer before hearing the excellent insights gained from the actor's point of view (presented next, below). A video clip which helps to explain this dreadfully realistic film much better than I have. Leaving one with a deeper thanksgiving to its terrible truths and fearsome depths which we must every-so-often be confronted by in order to better appreciate this short life we are given by God to endure, and to make some sense of. A film that might help us be better human beings for having actively contemplated and discussed it with friends and family.

R.E. Slater

December 5, 2011

Finally... Themes Revealed

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/05/terrence-malick-the-tree-of-life-summary-synopsis-cannes-film-festival.html

Los Angeles Times

May 25, 2011

Tree of Life is a pure mystery to most movie-goers out there.

Even those who've seen it from Cannes has vague and generally mysterious ways of describing it.

24 Frames posted this video which features Brad Pitt and other members of the cast talking about what Tree of Life is and what the production meant to everyone involved.

In three minutes I have a much firmer grasp on what Tree of LIfe may actually be about, as opposed to cryptic talk from anyone who's seen it.

Check out the short video below, and prepared to finally be enlightened.

Note: This doesn't contain spoilers, but if you want to go into Tree of Life as innocent as possible, you may want to avoid this video since it discusses some of the themes running through the narrative.

The Tree of Life Summary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJoqjdNeZHU&amp=&feature=player_embedded

The Tree of Life - Explained

Analysis by Bishop Fr. Robert Barron

The Tree of Life

(148 mins)