More Than One Lesson

CRASH (2005)
Directed by: Paul Haggis
Written by: Paul Haggis and Robert Moresco
Starring: Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Don Cheadle, Ryan Phillippe

Every once in a while there comes a movie that brings racial issues to the table and deals with them in a moving, challenging way. In recent years, that movie was Spike Lee’s 1989 Do the Right Thing 1. Eighteen years later, Paul Haggis wrote and directed a sappier, over-the-top version of the same movie. He called it Crash, and somehow won three Oscars, including Best Picture.

[…]

In this episode, Tyler is joined by Shawn Richardson to discuss the Harry Potter series.

FUNNY PEOPLE (2009)
Written and Directed by: Judd Apatow
Starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, and Leslie Mann

The title is Funny People and being that the film is written and directed by Judd Apatow (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) one would assume that the key word is “funny.” That assumption would be secured in the fact that the film stars Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, two very funny and talented comedians. However, despite those above mentioned assurances and even though this film has some really funny moments the key word in the title is “people.”

This is a movie about people. People who are real, honest, flawed, caring, loving, jealous, selfish and as the title suggest-funny. I know the people in this film. My friends are like these people. I have worked with these people. I have done sketch shows with these people. My family members are like these people. I am like these people. This is one of the most honest and authentic portrayals of people that I have ever seen on film. There were times in which I squirmed in my seat because I have acted like the characters on screen in word, deed, and feeling. This is what happens when I watch Apatow films. Whether he wrote it, directed it, or produced it his film are defined by the characters, the humor, and the true to life situations.

Funny People feels even more familiar because it is his most personal film. The film opens with a home video of Adam Sandler, in character, making prank phone calls. This isn’t a home video produced for the film it is an actual home video of Adam Sandler making prank phone calls and it was shot by Judd Apatow twenty years ago. Through out his career Apatow has made many friends in the world of comedy and many of them are in this film. He cast his wife Leslie Mann to play a mother and his own daughters, Maude and Iris, to play her daughters. The story is based on an unrevealed friend’s battle with a terminal illness. I have to imagine that the experiences of the characters are based on his own experiences. The film is more authentic than his other films because he is putting his life on the screen. I have a great deal of respect for him for doing it, but the question is does this make for a great film?

The answer is yes and very much so.

The story follows comedian George Simmons (Adam Sandler) who has achieved a great deal of professional success. He is diagnosed with a terminal illness and for the first time begins to question the course of his life. He quickly realizes that he is selfish, shallow, and worse of all-alone. He hires a young comedian Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his personal assistant and to write jokes for him. The working relationship turns into something resembling a friendship, although it appears to be one sided with Ira caring more about George. Ira encourages George to reach out to his friends and family during his remaining time on Earth.

Adam Sandler is great in this film. He is the star of it and he has the courage to play the character without looking for sympathy. The character is a real son of a bitch and while he is aware of it, he doesn’t seem to want to change it. When bad things happen to him it is because he is a victim, not because he has done anything wrong. He cheated on the love of his life, Laura (Leslie Mann) and while he acknowledges that he was wrong for doing it, he stills feels like he deserves another shot. He needs somebody to talk to him while he falls asleep; this is actually in Ira’s job description. I cannot imagine a more selfish need than this one. Ira pulls a chair up next to his bed and talks to him until he abruptly falls asleep, ending the conversation. Sandler has a few chances to ask for sympathy, but he turns them down. For instance, when George is invited over to Ira’s place for Thanksgiving dinner he gives a big toast about how the people around the table should enjoy their twenties because it is the best time of their lives. This speech isn’t for the benefit of the people around the table it is for his own personal nostalgia and Sandler shows that on George’s face. He is talking about the things that he misses in his life, not encouraging them to enjoy this time in their lives.

Any sympathy we have for anybody in this film is through the character Ira Wright, because he is a genuinely good person. Ira is struggling to begin his career. He lives with two other comedians named Mark (Jason Schwartzman) and Leo, (Jonah Hill) who are enjoying much more success. Mark is the star of a terrible sitcom called “Yo Teach”, and he makes a lot of money for it. Actually, he makes $25,000 a week for it; we know this because he leaves the check stub on Ira’s pillow. Leo isn’t as successful but he is constantly being booked for stand up gigs and is beginning to establish his career. These details are important because they not only define Seth Rogen’s character but also reveal the world of comedy to the audience. It is a cut throat world and Ira has trouble because he isn’t as aggressive as his friends. It has nothing to do with talent it has everything to do with his character and confidence. He is a good person trying to survive in a competitive world, even when he makes mistakes. The one time he does wrong somebody it blows up in his face and it feels like it is more our of desperation than malice.

He can’t even keep up in the world of dating because he doesn’t want to simply sleep with women, he wants to get to know them and be in a relationship. He has a crush on his neighbor Daisy (Aubrey Plaza) but is too afraid to talk to her. Mark just wants to have sex with her. He tells Ira that he has ten days to make his move and if he doesn’t he will sleep with her. Mark ends up giving Ira three weeks and then sleeps with her. When Ira finds out he is hurt because A) Mark slept with her just because he could and B) because Daisy went along with it. Ira is a nice guy and this film doesn’t guarantee that nice guys will win out in the end.

Ira actually cares for George and considers him a friend. Whenever George realizes this he corrects Ira but doesn’t send him away because he is afraid to be alone. Ira stays with George in these situations because he cares for him.

I sincerely hope that after this film Seth Rogen is finally recognized as an actor that does comedy instead of a “comedic actor.” From The 40 Year Old Virgin to Knocked Up to Pineapple Express, Rogen has delivered strong-character-driven performances. He deserves to be recognized for the work that he puts in to his films because it is really impressive.

Finally, I want to end where I began, with Judd Apatow. I want to applaud him for telling this story as filmmaker rather than a comedian. Traditionally, comedies don’t rely on filmmaking techniques as much as they rely on the zany performances to carry the film. Judd Apatow hired Janusz Kaminski to be the cinematographer for this film. Janusz won an Academy Award for Schindler’s List and has worked on every Spielberg film since. If you are hiring him to make your film look that good it implies that you are more interested in making a film rather than a “comedy.”

If Apatow were interested in just making a comedy so that people would laugh he would not have made this film. He set out to make a strong film about people who work in comedy. He didn’t really on jokes to tell this story, he relied on his characters. He hired people that are typically though of as comedians to act, not perform, in this film. When the film is funny it is because they are using jokes not doing “bits.”

This is not a gut busting film and it is kind of a downer at times, but it is a great film.

Living in Los Angeles has really had an interesting effect on my faith. Having met with a fair amount of ridicule and hostility (some direct, some not), I found myself becoming more and more argumentative. I immersed myself in Apologetics; that is, the practice of approaching Christianity with logic, reason, and analysis for the purpose of a deeper understanding of the faith. I became absolutely hooked. Once I started to read one argument after another in defense of Christianity, I couldn’t stop.

My drug of choice was C.S. Lewis. I started with “Mere Christianity,” then moved on to “Miracles,” “The Problem of Pain,” and “The Four Loves.” His practical, yet faith-based, approach to the teachings of Jesus were exactly what I was looking for. So I went out into the world of the internet, armed with arguments, looking for a fight.

It got to the point that I would have trouble sleeping at night, rehearsing rebuttals to what an atheist friend might say.

It was an interesting circumstance. I had a fuller, deeper understanding of Jesus and the sacrifice he made for us, and yet I had no peace or joy. Apologetics is supposed to be a tool, but I was fully prepared to wield it like a weapon.

I realized that it was my personal pride that had gotten in the way. It wasn’t so important that I defend the faith as it was that I won the argument. As such, I had only read the material to find key points that would strengthen my rebuttals.

I decided that, as my new understanding wasn’t actually helping my relationship with God, as it was meant to do, I would have to change my approach to Apologetics. Rather than trying to find a way to prove myself to others, I would look for a way to glorify God.

Once I made that decision, I started looking at these books in a whole new way. Suddenly, I found myself having discussions, not with atheists, but with my fellow Christians about the wonder and grace of God. In these talks, we would deal with our own questions about Christianity, not by simply acting as if these questions were wrong and should be ignored, but by thinking through them and listening to each other, using Lewis and Driscoll and Keller as reference points.

God gave us inquiring, reasoning minds and the freedom to use them. Some would say that within this freedom lies permission to simply accept whatever we like as the truth. However, what I came to realize was that, the more questions I had, the more answers I discovered. The more answers I had, the closer I came to Christ.

Apologetics was never meant as a way to win arguments. It was meant to incorporate inquiry and intellect into the faith so that we might be able to better comprehend and verbalize what Jesus did for us. I find that, if I focus on that aspect of Apologetics, I have fewer debates and many more conversations.

NATHAN POTTER originally hails from Kansas City, Missouri. He has been studying theatre and film since high school and has a BFA in theater arts that only took him five years to obtain. After being saved in high school, Nathan began learning and living un-biblical theology disguised as Neo-Christian philosophy, resulting in a life of empty philosophy and vain pursuits. After moving to Los Angeles in 2007, Nathan’s eyes were opened to God’s love and the full truth behind the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Since then, God has been pouring biblical understanding and theological comprehension into him, in preparation for full-time vocational ministry sometime in the future. In May of 2009, Nathan married the woman of his dreams, his very own Proverbs 31 girl. Nathan loves hip-hop music.

AWAY WE GO (2009)
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Written by: Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida
Starring: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Catherine O’Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney

There are specific ingredients that will make me fall in love with a movie. In Away We Go, its as if Sam Mendes read my diary in order to make for me that almost-too-good-to-be-true movie experience. I’m not saying it is a cinematic masterpiece. If you can manage to make it past the first purposefully-too-suggestive, too-awkward opening scene (unlike a sweet 60-yea-old man next to me who fled the theater), you may find yourself falling for this delightful dramedy.

So what’s the cinematic recipe to my heart? For starters, lovably flawed and lost people like the couple Burt and Verona, played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. Expecting a baby and faced with the fact that they just may be “F***ups” without a true place to call home, they endeavor on a journey in search of where they can belong and start their family. Road movies in general have made me giddy ever since I saw Vacation, where it made prefect sense to risk everything to get to a theme park. I later hoped to one day find the “Thelma” to my “Louis” and road trip around the country… or, more correctly, escape from the law. Road movies heighten the all or nothing search inside of us for that one true thing we are all looking for. And for Burt and Verona it is a place where they truly belong. From planes to trains to automobiles (another great road movie right there), the lovers meet up with past friends and family to see if Arizona, Colorado, Montreal or Florida could be the perfect fit. On their journey of self-discovery, the audience discovers that, behind Burt’s quirky Casey Casem impressions and unabashed cluelessness, and Verona’s tragic past, these two were truly fortunate in finding each other. Despite what they don’t know about themselves or their future, their love is not dysfunctional. That is a breath of fresh air for a relationship movie.

Once you’ve gotten the right ingredients, it is important to mix it with a good soundtrack. Even when I think a story is ridiculous or impossible, you can still make me weep like a baby or get my heart pounding when the right song plays. More and more studios are catching onto this fact and are happily manipulating me to cry on a regular basis. Sam Mendes chose unknown Alexi Murdoch to orchestrate the emotional feel of the film with his more subtle melodic tone. It gives the movie that extra road trip ambiance of travel with an indie quirk that blends with the main characters. I may not have fallen to my knees at every scene, but, by the end of the film, I realized that I had not only taken a journey with these people, but with Murdoch, who was singing us home.

But of course it can’t be all hugs and kisses. The movie would just be boring. Burt and Verona must, in fact, find the place they belong, and, as we all know from real life, it can be painful and heartbreaking. Each place they venture holds an ensemble of characters with impressive actors behind each one. Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey beautifully play a happy couple with a secret. Jeff Daniels and Catherine O’Hara have fun in the roles of Burt’s peculiar parents. Well-knowns Maggie Gyllennhaal and Allison Janney play characters that, though entertaining, seem too outrageous to be authentic. They become such foils to Burt and Verona that you don’t understand how they ever co-existed. These obstacles seem almost forced and you could probably guess right away where these two need to go. Yet I can’t fault Sam Mendes for not making Away We Go the soul mate of my movie love. He had losers, he had the open road, and he had heartstring melodies that made writers’ Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida’s well-versed screenplay come to life. And most importantly he had that connection you want with characters that at the end of the movie you feel you’ve traveled with them and I was sad to see Burt and Verona go. It’s true our heart wants what it wants and mine was happily filled in Away We Go but we also want that unexpected surprise not written in our diaries and Sam Mendes stuck more to the key I’ve seen in many indie films before.

As a Christian who grew up in a Christian household, I’m an accurate barometer for the matter at hand. When my parents bought me a CD player as a gift, they included the newest DC Talk album. When my parents realized I responded to the dry humor of the likes of David Letterman and the self-deprecation of Conan O’Brien, they asked the church counselor for help. To this day, when my mother sees a book of mine laying out, she will ask me if it has any “nasty language” in it. Every radio pre-set is Christian radio, my mother even cooks to Christian talk radio. When it comes to movies, my parents venture into the mire of secular films occasionally but with reluctance. If the movie is rated “R,” its chances of being watched decrease by approximately 97%.

Everybody does it. EVERYBODY. We gravitate toward those who share our beliefs and opinions entirely, and we dismiss outright those who don’t. But is that really a worthy excuse? If everybody else is doing it, shouldn’t Christians stand up and be the exception? We should. Which is why it’s so continually disheartening to see how the Christian community views popular culture in general and film in particular. In future blogs, I’m going to delve into some specific areas of “secular” movies that keep Christians away – foul language, sexual content, un-Christian subject matter, and violence – but for now, some general observations are in order.

Despite the fact that we could talk ad infinitum about the problems and shallowness of the film industry, it is a mistake to view movies as simple entertainment; a way to pass time. Film is an art form, and there are serious artists (and funny artists) trying to say something with their films. There are artists who use their films to explore ideas and emotions and who want to do something that lasts. It is time for Christians to begin seeking out better movies than just the ones playing at the local megaplex. Film is not an entertainment that happens to be art. It is an art form that seeks to entertain in the process.

Speaking of linguistic distinctions, our Christian community tends to give disproportionate weight to those movies that call themselves “Christian Movies.” Most see it as a sign that they will not be offended by anything they see in the movie; but this is true if and only if they are not offended by bad writing, acting, production values, and the over-simplification – nay, distortion – of their faith. The label also cynically implies that movies without it are not Christian, as if “Christian Movies” are made with some special film-stock that was dipped in Holy water before being put into the camera. It is better to be a movie that happens to be Christian than a Christian movie. One major reason I am so insistently negative about the label is that it lacks humility. It is self-important. It’s much harder to make a good movie when you’re wound up by how brilliant you’re certain the finished product will be. It distances you from the immediacy and the honesty telling a good story. It observes the finish line too quickly and forgets to run the race.

This is an issue that affects Christian movies more than most because it is easy to assume that since one’s motives are pure, the product will be artistically meritorious. It doesn’t work that way. I admire the grassroots effort of the Sherwood Baptist Church to raise money and finance a movie (these are the minds behind Facing the Giants and Fireproof) but they haven’t made a good one yet. No doubt the people involved want to make movies that speak to people and demonstrate Christ’s love, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have to do the work. That someone feels called by God to make movies does not automatically mean that the movie will be any good. If anything, it means that they have a lot of work ahead of them. If they don’t have a background in film or and understanding of it as an art form, then they have a responsibility to the call that has been placed on their life to get one. Otherwise, they disrespect the path the Lord has set before them and they miss the opportunity he has given them. That movies are seen as entertainment does not at all mean that their creation is child’s play. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Just because a movie isn’t made by Christians doesn’t mean Christ can’t speak to us through it. God is not so limited. God is Truth. If a film achieves a truth, then it is relevant to our lives and relevant to our walk with Christ. It doesn’t mean that we should baptize the film and claim it as a sleeper Christian film. That’s not the point. The point is that God is big enough and good enough and loving enough to transcend the parameters of a movie and reach us through it. Regardless of the filmmaker’s personal beliefs. On the other hand, to build on the previous point, just because a film is made by a Christian doesn’t mean it has anything to say. Film critic (and national treasure) Roger Ebert puts it this way: a movie is not about what it is about, but how it is about it. Even if a film is “about” Christian themes, it is in vain if it does not say anything of worth about them.

Right now, the state of Christian cinema is bleak. A lot of people will tell you that that’s because it’s in its infancy, and it just needs some time to grow. I disagree. The state of things is bleak because the people making the movies (a) aren’t filmmakers and haven’t taken the time to become filmmakers, and (b) hold a frustratingly misguided and narrow view of what content is acceptable in a “Christian” film. Without a major shift in both areas, the impact of Christian films will be relegated to preaching to the choir. That is, if the choir is still listening.

How often is it that you can truly say you “belly laughed?” I mean, laughed so hard that tears came out of your eyes, snot dribbled out of your nose, and your sides hurt so bad because your diaphragm hasn’t had that hard of a workout since you decided to “start” your intense workout regiment and all those crunches when the clock struck midnight 2000-whatever? These have been the offerings this show has provided me over the past two summers. But, beyond the laughs (which is central to my enjoyment of the show), I like ABC’s “Wipeout” beyond that reason.

First, I step aside to answer the question some of the readers might ask: “What is ‘Wipeout?’” At its very essence, it is a television game show where each week 24 contestants compete through a series of obstacles in hopes to win $50,000. The show has three hosts: ESPN’s John Anderson, comedian and former Talk Soup host John Henson, and Jill Wagner who actually is the only host that engages with each contestant that will compete; John Anderson and John Henson commentate on the circumstances of each contestant, ultimately creating “characters” for the audience to personally getting connected with. Much in the vein of Japanese game shows such as “Sasuke” or “Takeshi’s Castle,” “Wipeout” proves to be a show where anything that can happen will happen.

Every time I mention my affinity for the show I am always confronted by people who either love the show or by people who hate the show. I seldom find people who exist on the middle ground. Ok, I’ve never found people existing in the middle ground; I only say seldom because I know sooner or later I will find someone who sits on the fence. For the “lovers,” it’s very easy to have a conversation about certain episodes, reminiscing on certain wipeouts that were either painful, ridiculous, or both; and it is not uncommon for us in the conversation to be swept back into the visuals locked in our memories and return to those glorious tears that originally fell. For the “haters,” I’ve had people blatantly denounce the show for its stupidity, but also I’ve had people question my own sense of taste and judgment based on my love for this show. To the “haters,” I have to ask if they had actually seen the show, which 85% of the reply is “No” because they have no desire to watch people act stupid and look stupid.

True, this show is a game show that truly exemplifies “schadenfreude”—a German word which stands for “happiness at the misfortune of others”—but isn’t that what inspires laughter? We see it all the time on our favorite sitcoms or movies; people getting themselves into outrageous scenarios where we find ourselves laughing at their attempts to get themselves out of their ridiculous circumstances. This was also the purpose of the once-hit TV shows like “Candid Camera” or “America’s Funniest Home Videos”—capture life’s funniest and most random moments showing the misfortunes of other people (or even animals) on video to share with the rest of the world. Yes, “Wipeout” may be different as it purposefully creates those “misfortunes” and documents each contestant’s attempts to overcome obstacles such as the elusive “Big Balls,” “The Sweeper,” “The Dizzy Dummy,” or “The Wipeout Zone” but the element of surprise is the reactions, both physically and/or verbal, of the contestants. Who knows the outcome for each individual? Every contestant—regardless of age, sex, height, weight, ethnicity, and even level of intelligence—will all have a different outcome as they seek to pursue the prize of $50,000. The wipeouts are not planned per se, only encouraged, and it is that randomness which brings tears of joy in laughter.

Beyond just the personal gratification of the show, I’m happy to see a show that can be enjoyed by all ages. In an era of time where the majority of TV shows available to watch are rated above the TVPG marking, “Wipeout” finds itself existing in a realm of family-friendly TV, which is far and few between. This can be a show for everyone. You can finally watch a show with your grandmother in the room without having to wince at something she may not approve of. In the case of this show, I’m sure she’d laugh just as much as you would. For some reason, all of us innately comprehend the foolishness of people’s actions and/or reactions as being funny. Watch a child’s reaction to a cartoon or slapstick humor, even they understand foolishness found when unsuspecting circumstances occur to someone else. Watch any guy’s reaction (and woman’s reaction to the guys) when something gets smashed between their legs—even the mere mention of this perhaps is making the male readers grimace at such a though. Regardless of age or education, everyone understands physical humor. And because of the appeal to all ages and its wide diversity of humor, I’ve heard and even seen this show bring families together, mine included.

Last summer, the final summer before my younger brother and myself would finally move out of our parents’ home and also when the show first premiered, I started watching and DVR-ing the show. I was the only one excited about the prospects of this show while my dad, mom, and brother all thought it was stupid. As I would watch the show, I would laugh out loud so hard curiosity began to peak interest. It wasn’t until a couple of weeks into the season that I finally convinced my younger brother to actually sit down and watch the show. I’ve never seen my brother laugh so hard, but what’s even more awesome is that this would be the beginning of a closer relationship with my younger brother than I have had in the past. Tear jerking stories aside, my brother persuaded my dad to finally watch the show; to hear my dad laugh with such gusto brought so much joy into my life. I don’t know, nor care for that matter, how many times I watched the first five episodes, but I enjoyed the time of togetherness my dad, brother, and I shared. We would enjoy the rest of the summer every Wednesday night at 8PM together; yes, my mom finally started watching the show. She couldn’t enjoy watching something else on TV when she knew the rest of us were having a blast in the living room. Though to this day, she still adamantly abhors the show and its “stupidity,” but even she could not resist laughing, even snorting, by the things she saw on TV.

Yes, I understand that “Wipeout” is not intellectually stimulating programming, nor does it cleverly seek out wit and sarcasm to create perfectly created jokes. But compared to the majority of comedy programs or comedians out there who rely heavily on explicit sexual innuendo or crude language to be “funny,” I say this show is a fresh alternative for an opportunity to laugh. At a time when our economy sucks, divorce rates are high, stories of crime and murder pervade our streams of consciousness in all forms of media, when depression can easily set in, the list can go on and on, isn’t it good to have something that can bring us together and make us laugh, bring us back around the water cooler, or provide an opportunity to bring family together, even for only an hour of syndicated TV programming? Happiness and joy are two qualities that make living much more easy, releasing heavy burdens for just a moment, to escape and not have to think about all the things we have to do. By no means am I’m not suggesting escapism as a way to live life, rather I’m suggesting that it is good to find opportunities to set aside the cares of this world and find a bit of freedom from them. Jesus said he would give us rest on our journey through life, and for me, while I don’t know nor am able to speak on God’s behalf of this show, I find Wipeout to be an enjoyable oasis from all the cares and troubles this world has to offer.

To end this piece, I must pay my utmost respects to the show: “I’m Brian Buxton. Good night and Big Balls!”

SHAWN RICHARDSON was born just south of Richmond, Virginia in Chesterfield. He has received a BFA in Acting and a BA in Scenic Design from Elon University in 2006 which will (hopefully) lend credibility to what he feels is Tyler’s very important podcast. He was raised in a Christian home and has never questioned the existence of God or Christ’s roll in greater community with Him but Shawn can attest that belief without study or prayer in a guy going off to college will lead to what we will call a “Heretical doofus”. After college Shawn moved to Los Angeles the pursue his delusions of grandeur. For roughly two years his hypocrisy matured but, with the application of hindsight, Christ was seeking him like the loving and sacrificial God He is. It was in LA, at the first church he had attended since graduating high school, that Christ in His grace allowed Shawn back into his presence. Something Shawn doesn’t even know how to be thankful enough for.

In this episode, Tyler discusses Stephen Daldry’s The Reader and what we as Christians can learn from it.