The Great Conversation in Cinema

Video Trailer for Biola Media Conference 2012

2012-03-04T22:27:00.006-08:00

Great Conversation 97 sec trailer

Great Conversation 4:40 minutes video

The Great Conversation at Biola Media Conference

2011-12-01T20:19:00.000-08:00

We are glad to announce that The Great Conversation in Cinema will be featured at the Biola Media Conference, Saturday, May 5, 2012 at the CBS Studio log in Studio City, CA. (link to Conference website T.B.S., as soon as it's up.) Planned is an interview segment in the morning's General Session, and one in the afternoon's General Session where Stan Williams will interview leading directors and how they involve themselves in the Great conversation of humankind's search for meaning.

Gavin O'Connor

We are excited to announce that GAVIN O'CONNOR, the director and co-writer behind MIRACLE (2004), PRIDE AND GLORY (2008), and WARRIOR (2011), has confirmed his participation. You can read the earlier interview Stan Williams conducted with Gavin HERE. As other directors confirm their participation we'll add their names here.

DeVon Franklin, Columbia executive, is the keynote speaker.

You can read about this blog's mission here.

On the Role of Cinema in The Great Conversation

2011-11-09T19:07:00.000-08:00

An Interview with Henry Russell, Ph.D.
by Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.


Henry Russell

Henry Russell, Ph.D. is a classics educator, headmaster of St. Augustine’s Homeschool Enrichment Program (founded with his wife Crystal), and president of the SS Peter and Paul Educational Foundation. He is known particularly for The Catholic Shakespeare Audio Series. His writings have been published in various journals.

=========

STAN WILLIAMS: What do you make of this idea that narrative cinema can participate in The Great Conversation.

HENRY RUSSELL: Well, film is primarily a visual and auditory medium. It can’t easily handle the complexity of philosophical ideas that words allow. So, film demands that the director and producers spend enough time with the ideas to understand them, and then pick which ideas to make the movie around. Filmmakers have to know which 10% of a book to make into a movie. The selection process probably needs to be more collaborative. Because what will happen is that one person, who knows the ideas really well, selects the book’s topic, and the director in exasperation says, “Good, God! How am I going to visualize that?” Consequently, directors default to the ideas that are easiest to visualize. And, as a result society experiences this discontinuity between a good book and an important film.

STAN WILLIAMS: Is there an example in modern cinema?

HENRY RUSSELL: Sure. Peter Jackson in THE LORD OF THE RINGS (TLOTR) had generally no idea what major ideas Tolkien was getting at, such as the patient certainty of Aragorn and his complete confidence in his destiny. The film’s portrayal of Aragorn is one of a man with an identity crisis. Another thing Jackson misses is the power of words. When said relatively slowly and cumulatively, words can change the human heart, and define eventually what is true. Literature, unlike philosophy and theology, functions by the accumulation of words. Like chipping away at a stone, a little bit at a time. But a film functions by large scale visual declarations. In the TLOTR books the telling of tales to each other is a big deal. But that doesn’t communicate easily to film. When characters talk all the time you lose the line of action that drives the film.

STAN WILLIAMS: Because you’re telling not showing.

HENRY RUSSELL: Yes, but it’s the telling that is how people function.
One of the most important functions of being human is sitting and telling, slowly, through the accumulation of words.

STAN WILLIAMS: When we listen to a story someone tells us, it’s our imagination that creates the visuals. That’s how we participate in the gestalt event.

HENRY RUSSELL: Yes, and film both short circuits that function or makes it grand and beautiful. It’s a double edge sword.

Peter Jackson as a Hobbit

There needs to be a more patient collaboration between people who (a) understand the words and (b) those that know what film has to do. Patience is key. If you can’t find people that really understand the texts well, it won’t be easy to find the right imagery, and horrible mistakes will be made.

In TLOTR movies, Jackson makes mistakes envisioning the characters. Certain elements come through, but to me it’s a ghastly skeleton. I suspect that Jackson has a good emotional understanding of what is “evil,” but he has very limited understanding of what is “good.”

STAN WILLIAMS: So, what needs to be done?

HENRY RUSSELL: There needs to be a step before the screenwriting, which is understanding the text better. It’s either a step or a person. I’m reminded of John Huston’s MOBY DICK (1956) starring Gregory Peck as Capt. Ahab, and how poor the film is in terms of the author’s themes.

Moby Dick may be the greatest American Novel ever written. It’s all about the desire of modern man to kill God. The story illustrates the degree to which democratic man is completely unprepared spiritually to fight the demonic leader, like Ahab. And that theme segues into Hitler and Stalin.

Moby Dick is also about how difficult it is to cut your way through the million messages of the world. And, yet, how there is an interior certainty that helps us do just that. The body of the former cannibal, heavily tattooed, and now chief harpooner, Queequeg, is a howling wilderness (like the sea), which Ismael has no understanding of. But there is an understanding of the soul that both men are good and need to be friends. There are a million hints that what Ahab is doing will fail; he ignores them, and then is surprised at what happens. Melville doesn’t want his readers to be surprised.

Moby Dick is also about how much God seems to interfere and create providential warning and opportunity. There are 5,000 times where you can go wrong. Yet, in the midst of it--for the reader as well as for the men in the ship-- it is clear where they are going wrong; but they don’t have the spiritual certainty of the mad Ahab. Modern man also knows what is right but he doesn’t have the courage to believe it enough to make a change.

But you don’t get that when you watch the movie with Gregory Peck, as cool as watching Gregory Peck can be.

So, the question is whether film can find the resource, now that it has technical capacity, to enter the Great Conversation more deeply, and explore ideas better?

There are some films that already did it well, but they’re kind of slow films, like Alain Resnais’ HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR (1959) or LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (1961) where we’re dealing with man’s propensity to violence and being trapped in infinite repetition. Or any of Ingmar Bergman’s films. He’s primarily a director of ideas. But those films are slow, except perhaps for something as perfect as THE SEVENTH SEAL. where action and idea really do work together beautifully. But in a lot of his other films he locks the camera down on a face, and there’s just so much of an audience for that. But those are guys who are taking on huge ideas.

STAN WILLIAMS: Is there anyone that’s doing that today?

Roland Joffé

HENRY RUSSELL: That’s a good question. (long pause). The guy who probably tries hardest, and I don’t watch as many films as I should, is Roland Joffé (THE KILLING FIELDS, THE MISSION). And sometimes he succeeds and sometimes he doesn’t. THE MISSION has some cartoonish characters in it that are just stupid, but THE KILLING FIELDS is just brilliant, although it’s largely a lie, but... it’s hugely well-realized film.

Who do you think of?

STAN WILLIAMS: I tend to see a great deal of meaning in so many popular films because they connect to audiences in the underlying moral context. But the weakness I see in film is its inability to deal with complex subjects, as you brought up earlier. I think you were being generous when you said a film can capture 10% of the book. Although of a novel, a film can make good use of 30-40% of the plot line. But in terms of what I am often discussing with writers and authors, we narrow it down to a couple of naturally opposing core values.

For instance, this morning I spent 2 ½ hours on the phone with a novelist from Texas working through the beats to her next novel, and we’re lucky to identify the core moral conflict that each of the characters will struggle with and arc upon. In her novel it was arrogance vs. humility which can be represented in a multitude of ways in the various goals and aspiration and motivations of the characters. So you symbolically represent those values in the conflict between the various characters and the physical consequences they bring upon themselves. But it’s not articulated in terms of doctrine, dogma, rules, or laws. It’s a sense. And the audience walks out of the theater with a sense of how to live life better, but they can’t articulate it.

HENRY RUSSELL: Right.

STAN WILLIAMS: I suppose why movies are so popular today is that we tend to not live by word but by sense and action. When we look at a tree we don’t need to see a Bible passage carved into the bark to understand that something divine created the tree and all nature. On the other hand, relying just on “words” as some “Christian films” do, doesn’t solve the problem because the ideas being dealt with in such films are so shallow and formalistic.

HENRY RUSSELL: Yes, if you’re doing that you don’t get or allow the full exploration of ideas. You know one of the great films of all times, as far as teaching morals, is Frank Capra’s IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (IAWL) (1946). There are very few films that get so much in, yet in a fully delightful way. Here you have something about the importance of the individual, and the economy of Providence, which is a huge theme. And the fact that what is perceived as the defeat of self, is actually the purification and the giving of self. I’m amazed at the film, even though it seems at times very trivial and childish.

STAN WILLIAMS: Well, it is hugely still popular, gaining strong ratings every Christmas it airs. And one of the reasons it still connects with audiences is because, at its heart, it is so true. Now, after watching IAWL, people don’t go away talking about “defeat of self” or the “giving of self,” but they have a sense of that in their mind, and they learn from the movie and give of themselves.

HENRY RUSSELL: The funny thing is, that this implies that the real effect of film is cumulative. You need a lot of good films rather than a few great ones.

STAN WILLIAMS: I think that’s right.

HENRY RUSSELL: We need the old studio system [chuckles].

STAN WILLIAMS: It’s almost like the reverse of the adage “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Perhaps you need a thousand pictures to have the same effect of a book?

HENRY RUSSELL: Now, let’s go back to the fact that people are becoming less adapt with words. Their language is becoming stripped down – and repetitive – and largely ugly – often used either for an effect of power, or worse, merely to obscure what they really mean.

STAN WILLIAMS: Or to fill up space, e.g. FACEBOOK and TWITTER posts about meaningless activities and thoughts.

HENRY RUSSELL: And that is something that, if it continues, I doubt that the good effect of anything else in culture will save us from. Because I do think there is something fundamentally necessary in storytelling and in talking. Now, a lot of talking is boring and repetitious because it is a kind of antiphonal affirmation of what we already know. But if we don’t do it, we don’t begin to develop ideas as well as feelings. And feelings that are incoherent, which don’t work themselves out into ideas, or at least proverbial expressions, are not going to do us much good. Books that talk are crucial, and I don’t know if you can make a movie that talks.


Still from WAKING LIFE

STAN WILLIAMS: That reminds me of Richard Linklater who said, “My plan B has always been to make a film about people who talk a lot.” and he did in WAKING LIFE (2001) and BEFORE SUNRISE (1995) and its sequel BEFORE SUNSET (2004). They are talking heads, either animated, or walking around Europe. Absent of plot, and nearly pure philosophizing.

HENRY RUSSELL: I would suggest that if there were at first a kind of judicious mixture – but now so many films have no words and they’re all action. The words are designed to simply stitch together cinematic action. That is a kind of perversity. I also think it creates an addictive taste in the human body which the human body isn’t designed to sustain. And I suspect that that taste isn’t well tolerated by people as they grow older. When I go into a movie, my body is generally shaking when I leave. Because the theater experience is precisely designed to do that, as Aristotle said. And I’m not going to put myself through that often. So, I think you could develop a case for talking again, and in that way cinema can be a more significant participant in the Great Conversation.

THE KITE RUNNER

2011-11-08T07:35:00.000-08:00

Dir: MARC FORSTER
Writers: DAVID BENIOFF (SP), and
Khaled Hosseini (N)

AMIR: Khalid Abdalla (adult), Zekeria Ebrahimi (young)
HASSAN: Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada
BABA: Homayoun Ershadi
SORAYA: Atossa Leoni
RAHIM KHAN: Shaun Toub
ASSEF: Abdul Salam Yusoufzai (adult), Elham Ehsas (young)
GENERAL TAHERI: Abdul Qadir Farookh
SOHRAB: Ali Danish Bakhtyari (Hassan's son)
ZAMAN: Mohamad Amin Rahimi (Orphanage Director)

IMBD's KITE RUNNER

(It was late when I posted this, so please advise of typos.)

Synopsis

Amir, Baba and winning kite.

It's 1978 in Kabul, Afghanistan. A crazy place with humans trying to find dignity in the midst of hell. A puppet Communist government thinks it's in power. But the Islamic Mullah's really control the the people through intimidation. At the same time the Afghan guerrilla Mujahideen movement is born. The Russians invade the next year. When the Afghans defeat Russia in 1989 killing 40,000-50,000 Soviets, with help from U.S. shoulder fired rockets, there is more fighting.

In 1992 there are elections under a tenuous run Mujahideen Islamic State. More fighting. In 1994 the Taliban with their version of extreme Islamic fundamentalism (believe or die, or die because we don't like you -- tyranny) they make rubble out of Kabul. There is Pakistani and Iranian interference. More fighting. Mass killings by the Taliban, and the Hazaras sect is massacred.

God tries to slow the Taliban down by bringing Earthquakes to the country that kill tens of thousands. But the Taliban tries to out-do God. Osama bin Laden makes plans from within Afghanistan, attacks the U.S. (NY and Washington), setting up the U.S. attack in 2001. This is a very crazy place, and the reason many didn't want the U.S. to get involved, even to stop the Taliban --who seem to have been infected with the same demons that possessed the Nazis.

With that as a backdrop, KITE RUNNER is the story centers around two boys from different classes. Neither has a mother, both dead. The rich Amir is from the preferred or ethically superior race of the Pashtuns. Amir's father is Baba, a rich conflicted merchant who does well to teach Amir virtue. But the one virtue Amir doesn't learn is courage to stand for what is right. Amir is a coward. Baba's loyal business secretary, Rahim Khan, is like a father to Amir and tires to encourage him.

The servant to Baba is Ali, and Ali's son, Hassan, is sort of a servant and friend to Amir. Ali and his son are Hazaras. But Baba treats both boys as his son, although he seems to favor Hassan because, Amir thinks, Hassan stands up for himself and is not a coward. Amir can read and tries to write stories. Hassan likes to listen to Amir's stories. Together they fly kites above Kabul and join in kite fighting competitions. They win a city wide contest, which helps to create envy among some bullies, who are really young Talian. The bullies are led by Assef. Amir's cowardice is exposed when Assef corners Hassan and sodomizes him. Amir sees this but does not help his servant and friend. There is shame all around, and Amir plants his watch (movie), money (book) in Hassan's living quarters and then accuses Hassan of stealing, forcing Ali to leave Baba's long employ with his son, against Baba's desire and forgiveness to stay. The guilt of this injustice eats at Amir and sticks with him all his days -- even after he and Baba escape the Taliban, immigrate to America, where Amir manages to graduate from college, get married, and publish a book.

It's then, in 2000, after Baba has passed away, that Amir receives a telephone call from Rahim Khan asking him to return to Afghanistan for a special mission concerning Hassan's orphaned son, Hassan and his wife having been murdered by the Taliban. When Amir learns of his own family's history in the story, Amir does what he can to honor the memory of his old friend Hassan. He not only has avoid the Taliban, but an old nemesis in particular who has only gotten more sadistic with age.

In the end, Amir learns courage, and how to stand up for what is right.

Moral Premise

Marc Forster works with the Aamad (L) and Zekeria (R)

This story is complex in terms of its moral premise structure. The Nicomachean Ethics continuum consists of PARANOIA (Absence of Virtue) vs. COURAGE (Pure Virtue) vs. ARROGANCE (Excess of Virtue). (See diagram below).

Under "courage" there are two sub-values that the story considers: FORGIVENESS and JUSTICE.

Breaking down FORGIVENESS (as the pure virtue) you have BITTERNESS (absence of virtue), and TOLERANCE OF EVIL (excess of virtue).

And Breaking down JUSTICE (as the pure virtue) you have CHAOS (absence of virtue) and REPRESSION (excess of virtue).

Simply put this leaves the moral premise statement something like this:

Paranoia and Arrogance lead to chaos and repression; but

Courage, Forgiveness and Justice lead to order and freedom.

Character Arcs (Inner Journeys)

The following value maxtrix for Kite Runner, is hopefully self-explanatory -- at least I don't plan on explaining it, much. But below are some things it reveals:

Some characters don't change, especially the most pure virtuous Hassan, and the ever evil Taliban.

The Nicomachean scale of values (absence of a virtue -- a pure virtue -- an excess of virtue) makes a wonderful conflict of values chart, around which to construct a story. Or perhaps you land there accidentally. It doesn't, but that you get there in the end is important for successful story construction.

A successful movie will layer character motivations so that they're related. Notice that Paranoia, Courage and Arrogance are on the top Nicomachean scale, but that COURAGE can be defined as (a) the "Courage to Forgive," and (b) "Courage to pursue Justice." That allows you to break down Forgiveness and Justice for additional value layers. It's important that you can relate all these values in some way, so the story organically seems "right." Notice how I have Rahim moving from half-way between Forgiveness and Tolerance of Evil TOWARD Justice. I suspect there are more of those "diagonal relationships" but this is the only one I saw tonight.

A successful movie, as THE KITE RUNNER is in every respect, provides for a group of characters that move in different directions and to different degrees along their inner arcs. What I suggest in the chart above is my estimate. Your chart of the same journeys may be different. That's okay. As long as there's a variety in the examination of the same values from various perspectives, both good, evil, and ambivalence.

For writers there is a bit more to this post at http://moralpremise.blogspot.com/2011/10/kite-runner.html

WARRIOR - CAGED SPIRITS

2011-10-25T04:59:00.000-07:00

Director: GAVIN O'CONNOR

Writers: GAVIN O'CONNOR (screenplay), Cliff Dorfman (screenplay, story)

Starring

Tom Conlon - TOM HARDY

Brendan Conlon - JOEL EDGERTON

Paddy Conlon - NICK NOLTE

Tess Conlon - JENIFOR MORRISON

Frank Campana - FRANK GRILLO

Release Date: September 9, 2011

LIONSGATE

RATING: PG-13 for fight sequences and language.

[This is mostly a review of the film. I'll do a little moral premise analysis at the end.]

Synopsis
Tommy Colon and Brendan Conlon are estranged brothers who end up fighting each other inside a cage for the Mixed Martial Arts championship popular with ex-marines. At first punch and bruise (and there are a lot of them in this movie) it appears to be just another pugilistic movie filled with gratuitous violence designed to entertain the battered minds of a bitter disenfranchised generation. And it may be all that — but only in part. For this story is a gripping, won’t-let-you-go study of what it means to fight for noble causes, what it means to love, forgive, and find redemption.

Haunted by a tragic past, Marine Tommy Conlon (Hardy) returns home for the first time in fourteen years to enlist the help of Paddy, his father (Nick Nolte). Tommy wants Paddy, a recovering alcoholic who’s returned to his Catholic faith, to help him train for Sparta, the biggest winner-takes-all event in mixed martial arts (MMA) history – with a $5 million purse. A former wrestling prodigy, Tommy blazes a path toward the championship with quick, frightening knockouts. Meanwhile, his brother, Brendan (Edgerton), an ex-MMA fighter-turned high school physics teacher, returns to the ring in a desperate bid to save his family from financial ruin (the bank is ready to foreclose on their house). To the ringside crowd and the sports commentators (played by themselves), Tommy is a mystery fighter that came out of nowhere while Brendan is an over-the-hill fighter who is expected to be dispatched in the first round.

But what the experts don’t know is what’s driving the two men. Neither are fighting for glory, money, or egos — but something much more important — the redemption of their lives, which is complicated by a father they both despise for abusing their mother so badly that she ran for her life from him years earlier. “Pop” has now been sober for 1,000 days, has returned in a meaningful way to his Christian faith, and agrees to coach the deeply bitter Tommy even though ringside Paddy roots for Brendan. In the end, the two brothers must confront each other and the forces that originally pulled them apart in the MMA finals. The climax is perhaps one of the most unforgettable in the history of cinema.

The uniqueness of the story is that neither Tommy nor Brendan
are fighting for personal glory. Tommy is an AWOL marine from Iraq. Why he’s AWOL harkens back to the story of Ishmael and Moby Dick and the biblical story of Job. Throughout the movie, Paddy (Pop) listens to Moby Dick on tape, and in a climax of his own, Paddy confronts the forces of nature that he (like Ahab) has brought upon his crew/family. Tommy is fighting for the families of the marines that were lost on the tragic day in Iraq that sent him running. He feels guilty that he alone survived and winning the $5 million dollar purse, which he intends to give to the families of his deceased warrior friends, will go a long way to erase his guilt for not dying with his comrades in arms.

Meanwhile, Brendan, who long ago gave up a successful career as a MMA fighter to become a humble but popular high-school physics teacher, gets upside down on his mortgage, and a hawk-like loan officer isn’t going to lose any sleep about foreclosing on Brendan, his wife and kids. But then, when Brendan begins to moonlight as a MMA fighter again, and wins a fight in the parking lot outside a local strip club bringing home the $500 purse to pay on the mortgage, the school board suspends him from his job without pay. Fighting outside strip clubs isn’t exactly the role model the school expects of its teachers. In this there is humor when his school principal ends up cheering him on with every ounce of his being. Also coming to his support is his wife, Tess who initially tells him: “I will not watch you fight” — but nonetheless puts her heart in the ring with him. As the audience, we cheer Brendan on as well, because, as his trainer tells him when he’s about to lose the second round championship fight, “Why are we here? If you don’t knock him out you don’t have a home.”

Dual Protagonists?
I want to say that the movie has two (dual) protagonists, Tommy and Brendan. But that isn’t really true. Brendan is the protagonist, and Tommy is the antagonist. Each has a tangible, physical goal, yet each is prevented from reaching that goal until they confront the psychological vice that blocks their progress — each must confront the truth that the movie is about (see “The Moral Premise” below). One of the endearing qualities of the picture is that the audience wants both Tommy and Brendan to win for different noble reasons. Consequently, the irony behind their estrangement makes the final two rounds of the final fight a love affair, in a very real way. I won’t reveal the ending here; it must be experienced. But I am looking forward to watching the movie again when it’s released to theaters and I can vote with my wallet.

Metaphor and Redemption
WARRIOR is like DIE HARD in the metaphor department , and both movies use the same theme music “Ode to Joy” that you may know as ” Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee.” Few women or mothers may understand what I write next, unless they are responsible for earning the family income and paying the bills. I suspect that most responsible men (and I consider myself one of them) have battled month after month, most of their lives, trying to pay bills and keep the family’s financial head above water. It is a constant battle in our consumer, materialistic society, where even as Christians we’re even harangued into giving every last dollar to the thousands of worthy causes that make us feel guilty if we don’t give way beyond our means. In DIE HARD, John McClain battles a tower filled with terrorists, who end up humbling John’s arrogance so John is ready to be a loving, caring and serving husband once again. The bloody fight with Hans Gruber and company is a metaphor for what John’s going through psychologically to get his wife back.

In WARRIOR the physical fighting is a metaphor for the psychological battle Brendan and Tommy (and Paddy/Pop) go through to find psychological redemption, and financial security as well. The fighting seems over the top and gratuitous until the last moments of the film, and then the metaphor and the brutality make sense. Watch and listen carefully to the last moments of the final fight. Sit on the edge of your seat and don’t miss it. What happens… what both men do… is nearly impossible for any other man to do in most casual situations, let along a championship MMA fight in front of millions on live TV.

Thus, the story beat that will grab you is how the brothers reconcile with each other and their father. It doesn’t seem possible, but then miracles do happen.

Moral Premise
If you’ve read my book, The Moral Premise, then you know that all successful movies (indeed, all successful stories in any medium) are about a conflict of values that prevent all of the main characters from achieving their physical, or outward, goals, until they confront the psychological blockage in their system of moral values. In WARRIOR the conflict of values is about bitterness vs. forgiveness. And until forgiveness takes place, no one is going to win any fight. Here’s WARRIOR’s moral premise statement:

Bitterness leads to hatred and separation; but 
Forgiveness leads to love and relationship.

In Conclusion
WARRIOR is an exciting and engaging human drama film, with award winning acting, direction, sound, editing, and a genre setting benchmark ending. It’s an Oscar contender and worthy film for adults and mature teens that explores the values in the human condition that are worth fighting for.

MACHINE GUN PREACHERS vs. "Christian Movies"

2011-10-24T18:30:00.000-07:00

by Brian Godawa

Relativity Media
Directed by Marc Forster
Written by Jason Keller

From the opening scene of a Sudanese village pillaged by LRA terrorists who force children to kill their parents, to the closing credit monologue of the real life Sam Childers’ plea to rescue the kidnapped Sudanese orphans by any means necessary, Machine Gun Preacher packs a punch to the gut of our moral conscience. And it does so with a nuanced spiritual and moral reasoning that challenges our American couch potato activism that prides itself in political debates over moral action. Oh, and did I say it involves Jesus?

MACHINE GUN PREACHER (IMDB) is based on the true story of Sam Childers, a drug addicted motorcycle riding criminal who “gets saved by Jesus” and goes to help rescue the orphans of Sudan from kidnapping, enslavement, torture and murder by rebel terrorists.

The story begins with an unrepentant Sam being released from prison, telling the Guards to go “F” themselves. What “poor” Sam learns is that his faithful wife has become a Christian, quit her stripping job, and leads a respectable God fearing life raising their daughter. And now she wants Sam to come to church. That pisses Sam off big time and launches him on a self-destructive raging crime spree of drugs, robbery, and violence. But he is brought to the end of himself, becomes a Christian, is baptized, and gets a respectable job in construction. This ain’t your low key Tender Mercies.

One day, Sam hears about a church mission project building churches in Uganda. He takes off to see how he can help. What he discovers is an evil world more wicked than he realized. Joseph Kony’s terrorist group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), crosses from Uganda into Sudan and burns down villages, kills adults, tortures those who speak out, and forces children to be soldiers in his terrorist group. The result is myriads of orphans without much help from anyone to protect them.

Well, as you can guess, this pisses off Sam. One day he gets a vision from God to build a church on his property for the street people rejected by “proper” churchgoers. He also builds an orphanage in the Sudan to help the children. When his new orphanage is burnt to the ground he starts over. But this time with a new spirit – or rather, an old spirit — redeemed with a new purpose. He joins the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), a counterinsurgent militia that protects the oppressed children with lethal force. Thus, the title MACHINE GUN PREACHER. Sam clings to his God and his guns. And thus the tremendous moral tale that asks the questions worthy of the Good Book itself:

“How far will you go to save helpless innocent human life?”
“How does God’s redemption apply in a violent world of evil run amok?”
“Is self defense morally justifiable in rescuing women and orphans?”

A Christian Movie?

I have to be honest, this movie contains in it what I usually criticize in a typical “Christian movie.” Big bad biker dude’s wife finds God, brings him to a corny red-bricked church, he accepts Jesus into his heart (i.e. “gets saved”), is baptized, turns his life around, starts his own church, and helps the poor children ... yada yada. Christian clichés and memes too familiar in the Christian filmmaking world.
However, this movie is not a cliché Christian movie. It is a deeply moving and honest portrayal of “muscular” Christian faith alive in the complex real world we live in -- and thus, draws broad respect even from non-Christians. So why do I say that? What makes it different if it carries some of the very same elements of Christian movies?

Let’s be honest, the most obvious major difference between MACHINE GUN PREACHER and so called “Christian movies” are good production values, good writing, good directing, and good acting. There are also several things in the storytelling that makes this film work where Christian movies approaching similar themes often do not. First, MACHINE GUN PREACHER contains moral and spiritual honesty; and second, its portrayal of evil and redemption is realistic.

Moral Honesty

While the movie wrestles with the moral issue of how to rescue widows and orphans oppressed by murderers, it does not promote hero worship or give pat answers. The movie deals honestly with the moral ambiguity of violence as a means to an end that exists in the real world.

First off, the villains in the film are fairly represented. Though the bulk of the murdering done in Southern Sudan has been by Muslims against Christians, Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA, claims to be a Christian. Now, this would be a perfect opportunity for the typical Hollywood politically correct spin to ignore the Muslim violence and paint it as a picture of “Christian” terrorism. But the movie does not do this. It tells us about the Muslim violence and then communicates that Kony claims to be a Christian. But Kony is clearly not a Christian; he’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing, using the Christian God’s name in vain. The issues are just more complicated than knee jerk moral equivalency allows.

Marc Forester, Director

The movie also struggles honestly with the issue of using violence to defend the innocent against violence. Rather than creating another left/right divide of the issue, or pacifism versus warmongering, this story promotes action -- yet questions itself with an ambiguous thoughtfulness. When Sam sees the evil of the LRA cutting off the lips of protestors or the mine field death of a little boy, he realizes that this kind of evil cannot be stopped except by force -- and he draws upon his past violence to overcome it. The movie suggests that his past nature is redeemed by channeling it to do good. Other than unborn babies, can there be any more helpless victims in need of protection than these? Can a pacifist in good conscience actually choose to allow orphan children to be murdered instead of stopping their murder with lethal force? As the Bible says, killing in self-defense is morally justifiable (Exodus 22:2-3) and rescuing widows and orphans from the wicked is commanded (Jeremiah 22:3; Psalm 82:4; Proverbs 24:11).

But neither does the movie degenerate into a bloodfest of vicarious catharsis of violent joy. It raises the issue, through a U.N. peace worker, that the use of violence even in service of a good cause can turn heroes into villains. She claims Kony too started out as Sam did, trying to do good with his violence -- but he ended up evil. Rather than capitulate to this simplistic moral reductionism, the movie goes deeper. Sam, in the face of all the evil, becomes filled with hate for his enemies, gives up on God, and is driven to suicidal thoughts. Yet he finds a way out -- a way back to God -- and draws a line of distinction between righteous and unrighteous violence based on the motive of hatred. One can achieve justice rather than vengeance by not allowing the hatred of the enemy to grip our own hearts. According to MACHINE GUN PREACHER, there is righteous violence in service of the good. In fact, Sam ends up rescuing the U.N. worker with his guns, providing delicious irony. That scene reminds one of how American soldiers provide the freedom and protection to protestors to hate and accuse America of denying freedom.

Spiritual Honesty

And that brings me to the spiritual honesty. While Sam becomes a hero, the movie does not whitewash him nor whitewash his faith. His faith and sensitive conscience create a complex moral tension in his life that is not completely resolved by the end of the story. Sam becomes so focused on his cause of rescuing people on the other side of the earth that he neglects his own family -- that he believes was given to him by God. Sure, he sells what he owns to save the children, but what he owns is taken from his family, which he has promised to provide for. This is a common problem with “full time” charity and ministry workers. Christian salvation does not always result in a balanced life. Christians often continue on as a mixed bag of good and bad qualities that God uses in spite of our flaws. Kind-a-like the stories in the Bible, but all too often unlike stories found in the Christian movie genre.

When Sam cannot get donations from the selfish rich people around him and he sees that the kids are not being helped, he has a crisis of faith. He gets angry with God to the point of cussing God out along with his family. (Oh my goodness! A Christian who cusses when he gets angry? Heresy!) The film portrays Sam repenting from his suicidal hatred and coming back to a justice orientation, but it does not show a spiritual resolution. Maybe this is just part of that uneasy ambiguity of the tensions in our own lives. The reality is that while Sam remains married, he remains a scarred and imperfect man with a bad attitude, who still screws up. It is a messy situation and no one gets away clean or undamaged. There is redemption, but this movie is no fairy tale with happy talk, prosperity, and clear-cut salvation.

At the end of the film, we see a video of the real Sam Childers telling us he is not capable of clearly delineating the right and wrong of what he does. But he asks us the question:

If it was your child who was kidnapped, and I could bring them back to you, would it matter how I got them back?

Making it personal challenges the self-righteous who would sacrifice the lives of other’s children on the altar of convenient arm-chair philosophizing. These are real people’s children being kidnapped, raped, enslaved and murdered -- not abstractions of an argument. The movie suggests that talk is not enough. Action is required. Evil can only be stopped with violent force. And violent force, even in service to righteousness, is not without its negative effects. But the evil will not listen to talk. So your only choices are: Allow innocent children to be kidnapped, raped and murdered or kill the evil perpetrators? Which will you choose?

Portrayal of Evil and Redemption

Straight up, this is a hard R-rated film. Unlike “Christian movies,” It is full of the F-word, has a crude sex scene, and is very violent. In other words, many Christians will be offended by it. In my book, Hollywood Worldviews there’s a chapter on sex and violence in the movies and the Bible where I explain that in a story, the power of the redemption is only equal to the power of the sin depicted. If you do not portray evil Biblically as the seductive yet destructive reality that it is, your message of redemption will not be truthful or believable.

While I do not condone all portrayals of sin in movies (some of it can be exploitative, again see Hollywood Worldviews) the depth of the depravity is essential to the potency of the redemption. The problem with some Christian movies is that when they portray real world evil with a filtered “protective” sugar coating like some 1970’s television bad guys, they degrade their redemption story to an unrealistic anachronism that doesn’t ring true to human nature. In the audience's mind, if the real world they portray is not real, how can the redemption be real? The reason why Sam’s “Old time Religion” salvation in a corny quirky Evangelical church is not off-putting to non-Christians is because it is depicted as a polar opposite of Sam’s equally extreme pre-Christian lifestyle. We understand and accept that it takes extreme measures to convert an extreme sinner.

Christians often have a hard time with the F-word in movies. They will sometimes accept violent shootings, stabbings, or riddling bullets (as long as they don’t show too much blood). But for some contradictory reason, they just think that the F-word is too harsh for their holy ears. If I see a biker dude in a Christian movie saying “friggin” or “dang” or whatever other substitute cuss word for how they really talk, I do not believe the reality of the character and subsequently do not believe the storytellers understand human nature because they are afraid to face it like the Bible does. Their fear of accuracy is a reflection of a lack of faith, reminiscent of uncritical hagiographic biographies of saints. Just too good to be true. The book of Judges depicts far worse than MACHINE GUN PREACHER ever does.

When Sam has quirky car sex with his wife by the side of the road, we are saddened by the dehumanized crudity. It portrays exactly the kind of dehumanization that has destroyed Sam and destroyed his ability to find intimacy with his own loving wife. Every aspect of this man – love, sexuality, relationships, human concern — is spiritually damaged almost beyond repair. It is almost as bad as the Bible’s detailed description of dehumanizing sexuality in Ezekiel 16 and 23. And of course, when we see a person whose lips have been cut off because they talked back to the terrorists, or when we see a child whose legs have been blown off by a mine, or a child forced to murder his own mother, we are repulsed because we cannot imagine such evil.

But rather than being “sensitive” to family audiences or avoiding “excessive violence,” this movie does what is morally right: It shows the evil so our consciences will be convicted and we will act. If we never saw the grotesque images of the skeletal myriads of Jewish victims of the Holocaust, we would not have the moral growth necessary to “never again” let it happen. If we do not see what is happening to the innocents in Sudan and around the world, we will remain ignorant and spiritually and morally immature, preferring political arguments in our safely removed lives to actual moral actions.

I will conclude this analysis with a translation of a famous Tony Campolo (a sociologist and Christian preacher) charge that struck my heart and never left me years ago:

Rebel terrorists have murdered over 400,000 Sudanese, and enslaved over 40,000 children and many Christians just don’t give a shit. And the most tragic fact of all is that many Christians who just read that statement were more offended by my use of the word “shit” than by the fact that 400,000 Sudanese have been killed and 40,000 enslaved by terrorists.

God, forgive us of this sin.
Jesus, thank you for MACHINE GUN PREACHER

--------

Brian Godawa is the screenwriter for the award-winning feature film, TO END ALL WARS, starring Kiefer Sutherland and Alleged, a movie about the Scopes Trial. He previously adapted to film the best-selling supernatural thriller novel The Visitation by author Frank Peretti for Ralph Winter (X-MEN, WOLVERINE). His book, Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment has been released in a revised edition from InterVarsity Press. His new book Word Pictures: Knowing God Through Story and Imagination (IVP) addresses the power of image and story in the pages of the Bible to transform the Christian life.

You can reach Brian at brian@godawa.com
Original Post: http://godawa.com/movieblog/?p=620
www.godawa.com
www.noahprimeval.com

Inside the Mind of a Hollywood Director: Bitterness, Love, Verisimilitude

2011-10-19T18:50:00.000-07:00

An interview with Gavin O’Connor director of WARRIOR

WARRIOR is a motion picture story about two bitterly estranged brothers who end up fighting in a cage for the mixed martial arts world championship. It is also about their relationship with their father, whom neither can forgive. The violence we see in the cage is visceral. Brothers fight. But more impactful in this story is the spiritual warfare that pits the brothers and their father in a three-way psychological cage. All three are warriors. Yet the movie dares to be about how each of us is called to fight the good fight and be a warrior for love.

Gavin O'Connor

Why do Hollywood directors make movies that contain intense violence, offensive language and questionable thematic material, which are the elements that earned WARRIOR its PG-13 rating from the MPAA? Some will object to the film’s realism, calling it gratuitous. But O’Conner would disagree. Why? Because he’s intent on telling the truth about the spiritual warfare that exists in every man. And that includes you.

So, offered below is a different kind of interview with a top Hollywood director. It offers a spiritual and psychological glimpse into a director’s motivation for the kind of tough but true films that someday be may be dubbed the “Gavin O’Connor genre.”

While I have edited out the spoilers from the interview, it will nonetheless make more sense if you’ve first seen the film, or have read a thorough review or synopsis of the story. You can do so HERE.

Gavin O’Connor is truly one of the best director’s in Hollywood, although his filmography is not that long. He’s known for three major films: MIRACLE (2004, starring Kurt Russell) about the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team’s victory over the seemingly invincible Russian squad; PRIDE AND GLORY (2008, starring Collin Farrell, Edward Norton, and Jon Voight) the saga of a multi-generational family of New York cops and moral corruption; and now WARRIOR (2011, starring Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, and Nick Nolte).

Stan Williams: We hear about actors asking a director: “What’s my motivation?” Let me turn the tables. What motivated you to make WARRIOR?

Gavin O’Connor: That’s a very difficult question to answer. There were things going on in my life that I knew I wanted to deal with or gain some type of insight or understanding of them. I was really struggling with forgiveness. There were also things that happened in my childhood that I think I was trying to explore through my art. I also have a love of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), and I had never seen it dynamic portrayed in cinema before. So, I thought that was an interesting kind of possibility. Then it started to culminate with this idea, which I called “intervention in cage.”

Stan Williams: Which is a metaphor for what the film is really about…

Gavin O’Connor: Yes. What started to emerge, as I was thinking about the characters, was the idea of one man living in his higher self and someone living in his lower self and a third someone living in his spirituality. Then there is the idea of spiritual warfare. All these things were matriculating in a weird way, and they all started to come out.

Stan Williams: WARRIOR successfully engages audiences with several impossibilities: (a) it’s about two underdog brothers, who have been estranged for years, and (b) and yet they end up fighting each other in the final match for the mixed martial arts world championship. Ironically, it’s (c) their estrangement out of the cage that entangles and embraces them in the cage. While that’s intriguing, what do you do as a writer and director to help the audience embrace such improbabilities and make it seem so real? (1)

Gavin O’Connor: When I walked my co-writer, Anthony Tambakis, through the idea for the movie, he said, “You can’t have these two guys fight each other in the end. How are you going to pull that off?” Well, the way we approached all of this is to only tell the truth. We don’t write it and then shoot what we wrote. What we write becomes the blueprint for months of work-shopping the film with the actors.

Stan Williams: What do you do when you workshop a movie?

Gavin O’Connor: You meet extensively with the actors and you start connecting emotional lines. You start going so deep and dissecting the verisimilitude [the quality of realism in a work of art (3)] of every scene, that if anything seems false you address it. Like, how do we capture the essence of a marriage? How do we do that in the most truthful way? We always try to put everything under a microscope. We call it “non-acting.” For me, the word “acting” has a certain falseness to it. When I hear the word “acting” I always go for “non-acting.” We’re always trying to get to the truth of the scene. If we can keep doing that systematically and consistently throughout the whole film, hopefully, by the time we get to the impossibility [of the story’s plot] we’re so immersed in the emotionality of the piece and the characters, that the audience will want it, desire it, and be convinced of its reality.

Stan Williams: It seems that what you’re talking about is the psychological or moral motivation of the characters — because if you don’t tell the truth about their psychological motivations with respect to natural law, then the audience is going to pick up on that, and they’re not going to identify with the characters.

Gavin O’Connor: Absolutely. That’s exactly it. The characters must be rooted in their true psychological motivations. We’re always putting the microscope on the “want.” What do you want in this scene? And how are you going to get it?

Stan Williams: The Physical Wants and the Psychological Needs.

Gavin O’Connor: Yes. And they have to come from a truthful place. You really have to challenge it and poke it and prod it, because if it’s flimsy at all, it’ll fall like a house of cards.

Stan Williams: I’ll tell you, what you did in both PRIDE AND GLORY and WARRIOR translates incredibly to the screen. How long did you workshop?

Gavin O’Connor: I call it making the movie before you make the movie. With Nick Nolte [Paddy], the dad, we spent months together working on the character. Everyone has to do a biography on their own character. I give them a questionnaire with 100 questions to answer. And I want detailed answers. Because that’s what will inform everything, such as the emotional story lines. Then we start doing backstories on the [characters’] histories because since we’re making a movie about a family, there are things that everyone [among the actors and characters] has their own perspective on about what is true. We spent months doing it.

Stan Williams: What inner values are motivating Tommy to fight? Is he really trying to make things right with the Marines? Or is there a deeper motivation? Is he looking for an excuse to find forgiveness with his father?

Gavin O’Connor: The intention is that Tommy’s making a statement against God. He’s rejecting everything good. He’s rejecting love. He’s rejecting beauty. He’s rejecting all that is good in his life. There’s an expression, “Hurt people hurt people.” He’s a man who’s living in a lot of pain. And when you live in pain, it’s easy to inflict pain on others because that’s what you’re feeling yourself. I used to say to Tommy [the actor was Tom Hardy], think about Tommy as a guy who’s hitting a crack pipe.

Stan Williams: What’s that like?

Gavin O’Connor: It’s one of the most godless acts you can do. People who smoke crack experience an immediate high. But it’s a false high that goes away very quickly. It happens very quickly and then it goes away quickly. You’re always chasing it; and it’s so destructive. So, I’d say to Tommy, “When you get into the cage, you need to get high. You need to hit the crack pipe so you can actually experience this godless act that makes you feel good in the moment.” But once it’s over Tommy has to deal with himself again and ask himself, “Who is this guy who’s living in all this pain?” That’s what I was going for with Tommy.

Stan Williams: By the end of the movie Tommy changes, in a surprising way. I promise not to give away the ending. But where does Tommy begin to change? Where does he start to turn and start to embrace the good like he uncharacteristically embraces his father?

Gavin O’Connor: That’s very perceptive. That’s exactly what’s going on. At the top of the movie Tommy’s waiting on the doorstep and he offers his father a bottle of the brand that his father used to love. His father says, “No, thank you.” And we come to learn that Paddy is a thousand days sober. Tommy in essence is becoming his father. And he’s come home to get drunk with him.

Stan Williams: Ah!

Gavin O’Connor: Tommy’s expecting the man he knew as a boy growing up [drunk and abusive]. But it all gets turned upside down. Now his father’s not the man he knew at all. He’s an entirely different human being. And Tommy’s becoming like his father was. So, when Tommy finally gets his father [Paddy] to take a drink and become drunk once again, even while Paddy is listening to Moby Dick on tape as he does throughout whole movie, Paddy [the white whale] gets in Ahab’s face [Tommy] and yells: “Ahab! You godless son-of-a-bitch.” At that point, Tommy sees himself reflected back in his father’s face. It’s an Jungian archetype thing. And that’s the beginning of the surrender. It’s the first time you see Tommy become compassionate toward his father. To be healed, Tommy has to die to self. (2)

Stan Williams: We’re rooting for Brendon, Tommy, and their father, throughout the film. But it’s like Brendon and his Dad are both trying to pull Tommy along.

Gavin O’Connor: Tommy is on this godless path, this warpath of personal destruction of anything in his way — but his father and his brother force him to change.

Stan Williams: In PRIDE AND GLORY there are crucifixes on the wall in everyone’s house, even the bad guy’s. But you don’t bring the spirituality forward as you do at the beginning of WARRIOR. In Tommy’s absence, Paddy has dramatically returned to his Catholic faith and Tommy tears him to shreds over it, as if what Paddy is doing is hypocritical. Why is that? Why the shift from one film to the other? Why did you bring the spirituality forward in WARRIOR?

Gavin O’Connor: I think it was something that was a little more prevalent in my life, and also more prevalent in the characters’ lives. In short, the story demanded it. And I always intended the title, WARRIOR, to be about spiritual warfare, and warrior lives outside of the cage. The intention of the title was never about guys fighting inside [the cage].

Stan Williams: A strong metaphor to be sure. I see that the movie is really about love, but there’s a lot of bitterness, hatred, and violent fighting in the cage. Isn’t love about being kind and gentle?

Gavin O’Connor: If you want to dramatize love you need to see the flip side of it. I think visualizing love is a hard thing to do without seeing the opposite because you want something organic to emerge from it. (4) Then, there’s the balancing act as a filmmaker trying to capture the verisimilitude of this sport, which is violent. But what I was going for, and maybe it doesn’t come through, is to at least root the violence in the characters and never make it gratuitous. It is also mixed martial arts and I also have to shoot the sport in the truthfulness of its intensity, although I tempered it a bit. Once again, that all served the intent of the movie because I was driving toward [the metaphor of a spiritual] intervention in a cage. So, the spirituality in the film and the love in the film and the message of the film were all driving toward those five rounds [at the end] in that cage with the two brothers.

Stan Williams: What I think makes the film unique is that neither are fighting for selfish reasons, not pride, not ego, not to be rich, but for other things. They are both sacrificing themselves, in the cage, for something greater than themselves.

Gavin O’Connor: I think there’s nobility to both of their causes and quests. There’s something beautiful within Tommy’s pain — his loyalty towards what he calls his [Marine] brother, whom he calls Manny, whom he lost. There’s a nobility to what he’s doing – to try to save somebody else. He can’t save himself, but he can honor a promise and save Manny’s wife and children, and give them a life — that sacrifice is really important to him.

Stan Williams: What about Brendon?

Gavin O’Connor: In regard to Brendon, there’s the nobility of fighting for your home, to save your family. But I didn’t just capture it in the movie. As a nation were in the midst of the housing crisis [when we shot the film] and it hasn’t changed three years later [now, during its release]. You have this man being in debt, and because of his mixed martial arts background he literally is able to fight his way out of debt. I thought that was, in a way, wish fulfillment. There are so many men in this country that are on the doorstep of losing their homes and have wives and children and are trying to put food on the table – they’re working several jobs. They’re just trying to keep a roof over their head. So, they’re [figuratively] fighting their way out of debt. But Brendon literally fights his way out of debt. I just thought it was a perfect metaphor to explore.

-------------------
Footnotes

1 When O’Connor and Tambakis were writing WARRIOR, on their door they placed an Aristotle quote: “A convincing impossibility is better than an unconvincing possibility.” That’s good advice for all storytellers.

2 For my Moral Premise readers, this is Tommy’s Moment of Grace. While it does seem that both Brendon and Tommy are co-protagonists, and that is Gavin’s intent, Brendon changes little, and Paddy changes not a bit, although for one scene he slips off the wagon. But Tommy changes a lot. It is Tommy’s arc, not Brendon’s or Paddy’s, that creates the catharsis for the audience at film’s end. For that reason Tommy is the real protagonist, with Brendon and Paddy as the co-protagonists. The antagonist in this film is the bitterness, hatred, and inability to forgive, which is so prevalent in our culture. All of that is metaphorically represented by the hatred we see in the MMA cage and the tournament’s opportunistic promoters. Another way to analyze the characters is that this is a buddy road trip film, with three buddies. Each is the antagonist to the others who are their own protagonists. Remember, antagonists exist to change protagonists. But, however you analyze the film, O’Connor has created a masterful work drawing us in and helping us understanding a bit more about what sacrificial love is all about.

3. For more on the importance of verisimilitude (the quality of realism in film), and how it’s absence can kill the most nobly intended of film projects, see Life As It Is vs. How It Ought To Be.)

4. This is an important point that needs some explanation. When O’Connor says you want something “organic to emerge” from the juxtaposition of hatred and love, he means this: Just saying it, or TELLING it (as in a didactic sermon, homily or teaching) will not connect emotionally or memorably with the audience. Audiences learn through experience (or simulation of the experience which a well produced movie is). It’s the adrenalin rush that creates memories. So, you have to SHOW something with such verisimilitude that it’s ingrained in the audience’s mind, and not just a passing intellectual thought. This explains the power of stories, and why the Bible is 75% narrative.

[Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D. is a filmmaker living in Michigan who makes the occasional trip to L.A. on story consulting jobs or to give a workshop. He's the author of The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success. You can contact him at Email Stan or visit The Moral Premise Website. Copyright © 2011, Stanley D. Williams.]

Video Documentary - TGCIC

2011-10-03T12:00:00.000-07:00

Below is the Voice Over script for a short 3.5 min documentary that promotes the philosophical importance of cinema. It will be used to promote this blog (that's why in part we're posting it, now), and be used to introduce the director interviews we plan conduct at the 2012 Biola Media Conference in L.A. (May 5, 2012). We hope to illustrate the script with HD stock footage of the human condition from around the world and beyond. Your comments are appreciated.

V.O.

Humankind -- marooned on Earth --
-- or near it.
Why are we here?
What are we to do?
What is our destiny?
Why do we suffer?
How can we live better?
How can we achieve a good society?
How can we connect with God?
What is the purpose of life?
For five-thousand years humankind as searched for the answers to these questions and thousands of others.
A curious lot, we’ve left no proposition unexamined – no stone unturned -- no moss on these hands.
For our spirit of inquiry pervades everything --
-- in all places --
-- throughout time.
This is The Great Conversation

And where has it gotten us?
Let’s be honest – we have a long way to go -- nothing is perfect.
But parts of us are incredible.
The Great Conversation has allowed harmony, where there was discord --

Peace where there was war --
Food where there was famine --
Knowledge where there was ignorance --
And healing where plagues once ravaged.

And who has done this? Who has participated in this millennia of dialogue?
Philosophers –
kings –
artists --
scientists –
theologians –
explorers –
psychologists –
economists --
sociologists –
warriors –
teachers –
preachers –
revolutionaries --
and leaders of every ilk.

But The Great Conversation, long consigned to the realm of books, must honestly include the entire history of communication arts:
For humanity --
-- long before language --
-- was spoken --
-- or written, --
-- dialogued with itself.
And asked those questions --
-- about what worked, --
-- what didn’t; --
-- and why --
-- or why not?

By far the most adventurous, and all encompassing of the communication arts, is the celluloid narrative.
Motion Pictures are historically remarkable, not because of their budgets, the technology, or the grueling schedules --
-- but because of the mass integration of talent that comes together to create a labyrinth of art as it contributes to The Great Conversation.
As a result motion pictures have that unique ability to communicate to the masses, --
even to those who cannot read.
Through the unique power of STORY, Cinema gives us
-- a sense of God's infinite presence:
– revealing what is true,
-- examining the depths of the human heart,
-- allowing us to bi-locate,
-- and participate in Providence’s omniscience,
-- and omnipotence,
-- while introducing us to eternity, where time holds no bounds.
And so, cinema offers humankind an incredible tool for advancing our historic Search for Meaning.

In all these admirably habitual ways, and a thousand more, we:
-- investigate, --
-- invent, --
-- inspire --
-- envision --
-- work --
-- and hope --
-- for a better tomorrow.

This is The Great Conversation of Cinema.

Our Destiny - The Great Conversation in Cinema

2011-10-02T18:46:00.000-07:00

What is our destiny? What is the good life? How do we achieve a good society? How do we connect with our spiritual nature? What is the meaning in suffering?

Those and dozens of similar questions have haunted humanity from the beginning of its time on this earth. And over the millennia philosophers, kings, scientists, theologians, explorers and others have offered up their answers. Historically, such questions and answers have been written in books -- mostly by "Dead White Europeans" to use the name given to a literature course in at least one university.

But there have been other voices: male and female, from the West and from the East; and not just from those that have passed on, but from those very much alive.

The Great Conversation has been conveyed from generation-to-generation through a variety of media. The dialogue no doubt began with oral traditions. Then came petroglyphs, sculpture, rock tapestries, clay tablets, reed parchments, oil paints, printed books, and ...and ... yes, I guess we must include the electronic tablet.

By far the most adventurous of all medium -- that tool which has embraced -- even demanded -- the talent of every discipline known to humankind, is the narrative motion picture -- movies -- film -- ah, cinema. Celluloid narratives are remarkable, not because of their budgets, or the applied technology, or the grueling schedules -- but because of the mass integration of talent that comes together to create a labyrinth of art. As a result movies have that unique ability to communicate to the masses, even to those who cannot read. Movies show more than they tell, or at least the good ones do. And what is communicated? Nothing less than the great ideas, the great problems, and hoped for solutions that allow us to live better.

Narrative Cinema, because it simulates reality and portrays stories so effectively, lets audiences of all kinds and in all places participate in the Great Conversation like no other time in history. Well-told stories through motion picture arts give us a sense of God's infinite knowledge -- through natural law they tell us what is morally true, let us examine the depths of a character's heart, allow us to bi-locate, give us a sense of omnipresence, omnipotence, and let us experience what eternity is like -- where time holds no bounds.

In these ways, cinema offers humankind an incredible tool for advancing The Great Conversation and conducting humanity's historic Search for Meaning. It is to that end that this blog is dedicated. Albeit, most practically -- I guess we'll be using mostly words. Ah, yes, words.

Our vision for these pages is as the blog description says: to provide a forum about narrative motion pictures that advances The Great Conversation about the problems, the solutions, the contradictions and the paradoxes of the universe and the human condition. Your submissions are encouraged.

Submission Guidelines

2011-10-01T09:56:00.000-07:00

You are welcome to submit posts to the editor for consideration. Here are our guidelines.

The topic of your submission must be relevant to our MISSION.
Topics may focus on a particular film, filmmaker, or event. It may be a essay, an interview, a report, or a review of a film, a book or other work.
Our target audience is mainstream purveyors of narrative cinema of all walks of life and persuasions. While the editors' world view is Christian, the readers are not necessarily of any faith persuasion.
Please place at the end of your submission a 50-word or less bio about yourself, plus an email address and/or website where readers can contact you. For the editors, please provide a phone number (it will not be published).
When writing about religious topics, your submission should demonstrate a respect for all religious faiths that respect Natural Law and the Common Good.
Submission must be an editable Microsoft Word file. We will notify you of any and all changes, if they are required, and only use the edited piece with your approval. It may take up to two-weeks for your essay to appear.
We will not publish advertorials or marketing pitches, except for applicable events. Please keep references to your own works in your submission to a minimum, but don't avoid them where it counts.
Submit to our EDITORIAL STAFF by email. Expect SPAM ARREST verification.
Suggested length: 500-2500 words. Event descriptions should be short, and reference a website.
If you have applicable images that you own the copyright to, you may submit them.
Your submission must be written by you and available for publication without restriction by another outlet. We DO NOT accept third party articles. Your submission automatically gives us non-exclusive rights, including the right to publish your work in hard-bound book form and releasing us from having to pay you royalties.
IN YOUR SUBMISSION EMAIL COPY AND PASTE THIS LINE: "I HAVE READ YOUR SUBMISSION GUIDELINES AND AGREE TO THEM, UNEQUIVOCALLY."
These guidelines may change at any time without notice. I'm sure there's something we've forgotten.

INCEPTION: Can Dreams Become Reality? Should They?

2010-10-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

How INCEPTION WORKS, and why it reveals that filmmaking is an act of inception. Indeed, Christopher Nolan tells us a tale of Dom Cobb that is clearly autobiographical.

This is a MORAL PREMISE ANALYSIS of the mega-hit INCEPTION. ($160MM Budget / $289MM domestic box office.)

Writer-Producer-Director - Christopher Nolan
Length:140 min excluding credits (length used for analysis)

The analysis is based on two viewings of the film by two pairs of eyes, a lot of note taking with a stopwatch, and finally the published INSIGHT EDITION from Warner Bros of the Shooting Script (available through Amazon). The DVD was not yet available. Where my notes were incomplete I referred to the published script.

LOG LINE: "In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a highly skilled thief is given a final chance at redemption, which involves executing his toughest and most risky job to date."

CAST

COBB (Leonardo DiCaprio) - Protagonist
ARTHUR (Joseph Gordon-Levitt – of Third Rock) - Reflection
ARIADNE (Ellen Page) (air-ee-ADD-knee) – Daughter Mentor
EAMES (Tom Hardy) - Shapeshifter
SAITO (Ken Watanabe) – Co-Protagonist
YOSUF ( Deleep Rao)
FISCHER (Cillian Murphy) - McGuffin
BROWNING (Tom Berenger)
MAL (Marion Cotillard) - Antagonist
MAURICE FISHER (Peter Postlethwaite)
MILES (Michael Caine) – Father Mentor
NASH (Lukas Haas)
PHILLIPA (Claire Geare)
JAMES (Magnus Nolan)

STORY LINE

(From Warner Bros. Pictures) Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb's rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.

BREAKING THE STORY DOWN - THE TURNING POINTS (TP)

The analysis of the TP in INCEPTION reveals (again) of how the most creative filmmakers follow structural rules rigorously. But, where the story demands otherwise, they are not hesitant to break a rule, to make the story work. That is true of INCEPTION.
Notice that one of the TP does not happen at the "normal" spot, bur all the others are nearly dead on. An expert and visionary filmmaker like Christopher Nolan can pull that off. Don't try this at home.

Here are the ideal percentages of the TP for a three act story. The minutes to the right are based on 140-minute length movie (which is the length of INCEPTION if you don't count the credits).

12.5% = 17.5 min.
25% = 35 min
50% = 70 min
75% = 105 (1 hr 45 min)
82.5% = 118 (1 hr 58 min)
Black = 2 hr 20 min

Here's a breakdown of the movie and a graphic that correlates the TP visually.

Life Before: 00 m – 17 m
Cobb is an expert at extraction. But Mal, Cobb's repressed memory of his lovely wife, obstructs his effort to extract key information from Saito, which Cobb has been hired to give to Saito's competitor.

Inciting Incident: 18 m -- 12.8% (ideally 12.5%)
Saito forces then dangles a carrot in front of Cobb to get him to try INCEPTION on another of Saito's competitors – Robert Fisher, Jr., son of energy magnet, Maurice Fisher— to break up the company after his father dies (naturally).

Act 1 Climax/Acceptance of the Journey/Crossing the Threshold: 20 m -- 14.2% (ideally 25%)
Notice that the obvious acceptance of the journey comes only seconds after the offer. I think this is a great example of letting the story dictate where the turning points are, and not forcing the TP into a place that may fit a model but becomes awkward for the story at hand.

24 m - Ariadne, one of Miles' students, is recruited to be the architect of the dream mazes, or labyrinths. In Greek Mythology, Ariadne is The Mistress of the Labyrinth. As Miles was Cobb's mentor in the past, Ariadne is Cobb's mentor for this journey.

35 m – 25% (normal Act 1 break)
Nothing significant happens near this point, except Ariadne, repulsed by being murdered by Mal during a training dream and rightly blaming the violent act on Cobb (Mal is a projection of Cobb's subcon), quits, and walks out. But this does not change the direction of the story. As Cobb predicts, Ariadne returns a few minutes later, drunk with the power of working as a dream architect provides. Her mentor role in the story, however, is not only to design and create the mazes for the visual journey, but to unravel and deconstruct the labyrinth in Cobb's brain over Mal. She's the true mentor who confuses the enemy and leads the hero to safety. She is the goddess of the movie.

49 m – 35% Foreshadowing the MOG
When Cobb is training Ariadne is the art of dream architecture she discovers the presence of Mal is Cobb's subcon (sub-conscious). She warns Cobb that the others need to know about Mal's presence and the danger to the mission that she invites. He refuses her recommendation. He still wants to hang on to his memory of her, and retreat, from time to time to his dreams, pretending that her world is real – if only for a time.

MOG: 75m – 54% -- beginning of scene (ideally 50%)
When Ariadne discovers Cobb after hours dreaming privately, she joins him, and finds him with Mal. Again she challenges him to tell the others or get Mal out of his mind, before the mission begins. Before this point Cobb is easily distracted by his kid's presence in his subcon, but after this he show greater restraint in ignoring them.

Act 2 Climax / Near Death: 105m – 75% (ideally 75%)
This occurs when Cobb and his team, because of Cobb's decisions, miss the opportunity to time their return "kick" with Yusuf driving the van off the bridge. This seems to have trapped our team in dreamland forever and send them permanently to limbo for eternity. The second kick, when the van hits the water, saves them.

Final Incident: 114m -- 81.4% (ideally 82.5%)
Like the Inciting Incident this is TP (which are best initiated by the antagonist), and sure to that form Mal shoots Fisher and takes his protected body to Limbo, forcing Cobb to come and get him. This sets up the

Act 3 Climax: 125m to 137m / 89% - 98%% (Ideally 90-95%)
After Mal has dragged a dying Fisher, Jr. to Limbo, Ariadne and Cobb follow Mal, to retrieve Fisher, Jr. Cobb embraces the fact that his memory of Mal is not real. He sends Ariadne and Fisher back up the dream levels with a "kick" (they purposely fall off the balcony), and he stays behind, true to his word, says goodbye to Mal: "I miss you ore than I can bear...but we had our time together. And now I have to let go..." -- then Cobb goes off to find Saito, where they shoot themselves, and return to reality.

Touch of Irony. Notice how the protagonist directly faces the antagonist in a final battle, but it's with a soft word, not a gun. And how the confrontation with Saito, a co-protagonist, is solved with a gun. All very logically consistent with the story and the premises.

Dénouement: 137 m to 140 m – 98% - 100% (ideally 98-100%)
Cobb returns successfully to the 747 and Fisher and Saito wake up, Saito makes a phone call (his version of inception with the U.S. Government), Cobb gets through customs, Miles meets Cobb and takes him "home" to meet his children.

FINAL NOTE: This shows how a successful film does not ignore the important TP of a traditional beat structure, but allows them to move around under the demands of the story, and does not force them into locations that might not work as well.

FIVE LEVELS

Let me give credit here to Matt Sinopoli and his INCEPTION graphic at http://giantfreakinrobot.com as a reference I used in writing the following description of the four dream levels. The graphic to the right is his.

The descent into dreamland occurs at 62m (44%) into the movie, as the team and their target, Fisher, Jr. fly across the Pacific in the First Class cabin of a 747—the longest commercial passenger flight available. Fisher is drugged, the PASIV machine is hooked into the team's arms, and we're off on a wild ride for 75 minutes.

Level 1 – The dreamer is Yusuf, the chemist. In this level Fisher Jr is kidnapped, and the team forces him to give them random numbers that will be used later to plant the idea that his father wants him to break up the company. But they have to go deeper to do that, so while Yusuf drives a van escaping Fisher's security (projections from his mind), he sends the rest of the team to Level 2.

Level 2 – The dreamer is Arthur Cobb's point man, who along with the rest of the team, are sent to a hotel by Yusuf who is driving the van in Level 1. As the van moves and at time tumbles, the world of the hotel likewise tilts or rolls, making for some interesting scenes. It is here that Fisher, Jr. is tricked into believing that his "uncle" Browning is a traitor to his father's empire, and so Fisher joins the team in going a stage deeper to discover what Browning and his father are thinking subconsciously. So, Arthur stays behind and sends the rest of the team to...

Level 3 – The dreamer is Eames, the forger. Here Ariadne, the novice architect has designed a hospital in a mountainous, snowy environment, mostly so the audience can tell the levels apart as the cutting of the movie moves between the levels. Here Fisher, Jr. must be taken inside the hospital, which is like a fort protecting the inner secrets of his father and "uncle" Browning, so the idea to break up his father's company takes hold.

Level 4 (LIMBO) – There's no dreamer here. Mal, Cobb's memory of his deceased wife has shot Fisher in Level 3, and taken him hostage. As in the prologue, Mal is the antagonist that stands in Cobb's way of accomplishing his physical goals, whether extraction from Saito, or inception of Fisher, Jr. Her goal is to trap Cobb or force him to stay with her in Limbo, which she believes is reality. Of course Mal's desires are actually Cobb's deepest desires; what we see of Mal is a personification of Cobb's deepest wish.

As in all movies a character's deepest wish becomes his greatest fear. Mal threatens Cobb's ultimate goal of returning to his children in real life, which is predicated upon the successful incept of Fisher's mind, and getting Saito back to reality in one piece.

THE MORAL PREMISE

Here is a possible moral premise statement (MPS) for INCEPTION. There may be others, and you are invited to submit them with an explanation. The three propositional statements reflect the condition at (1st statement) the beginning of the movie for all the main characters, (2nd statement) the redemptive ending for the protagonist, and (3rd statement) the tragic ending for the antagonist, which was Mal's consequence in real life, not the dream.

Embracing dreams as reality leads to death of a vision;
but
Using dreams as inspiration leads to a vision fulfilled;
and
Embracing reality as a dream leads to a rejection of life.

Nested MPS

Sometimes movies have clear second MPS that are nested within the context of the main MPS. Here is a nested MPS I see in INCEPTION:

Coddling undeserved guilt leads to destructive distractions; but
Embracing acceptance and forgiveness leads to constructive focus.
And a constructive focus leads (allows) inspiration to transform our visions into reality.

Let me comment on how these work in the film.

White there are 14 characters named above as part of one of the teams, the aspirations or dreams of only four seem to matter—Cob, Saito, Mal and Fisher. The main MPS applies to ALL of these characters. The nested MPS may additionally apply to one or more, in this case the protag, Cobb.

COBB
Cobb's dream is to return to his children, but he holds onto the memory of life with Mal. Holding on to Mal as if she is real, nearly destroys him and his team. Only when he uses her memory as an inspiration, and casts off the undeserved guilt of her death, is he able to transform his dream into reality and come home to his children.

SAITO
Saito's dream is to inspire his competitor to trade and deal fairly on the world stage. Individually he does not embrace dreams as real, nor does he live under guilt for what he does. But he does ask Cobb to use Inception to instill in the young Fisher an idea that will lead to a safer or fairer world. The story isn't about Saito, but it could have been. The fictional Saito is lucky that Cobb changed his motivation (of rejecting dreams as reality, e.g. Mal) before it was too late.

MAL
Mal's dream (as a projection of Cobb's mind) is to keep Cobb in Limbo with her. This is of course the personification of Cobb's deepest desire — to bring Mall back to life. Mal's embrace of reality killed her real body, and now her infectious idea is trying to kill Cobb and the others. Why is Cobb's subcon trying to kill Cobb? It's the purpose of lies — to destroy life as we know it to be in exchange for what appears to be better, utopian, but surely certain death.

FISHER
And Fischer's dream...well, that's what the movie is all about ... to give Fisher a dream, or an aspiration for the future. Indeed before our protagonists plot to incept (or inspire) Fisher with an idea we're not sure if Fisher has any aspiration or not. As is evident in the Level 2 dream state, Fisher's mind has been trained to identify what is real and what is a dream, and chase off the fake (his subcon security force).

UTOPIA and THE MORAL PREMISE

What Cobb's team plant in Fisher's mind (as an inspiration, I contend) is the true side of the MPS. It could be argued, if we are to believe what Saito tells us, that Maurice Fisher is striving for a kind of utopian business model—control everything and destroy fair competition. But that model, like the utopian dream state that Mal embraced, will destroy the Fisher conglomerate, eventually. Cobb's team inspires Fisher's Jr. to be his own man, and not strive after the utopian state that his father pursued. The betterment of society is achieved.

That Mal (in part with Cobb) pursued a utopian state is fairly obvious by the action, but there is, in the script, that points to the problem of utopian thought. It's a description of Cobb and Ariadne walking a through limbo looking at the elaborate but decaying buildings. The action description is this: "Ariadne marvels at the extraordinary collection of buildings—every architectural style imaginable in waves of FAILED UTOPIAS.

INSPIRATION OR CRIME

The film has been billed as the "perfect crime." But I think it's more about inspiration and the role we all play in other people's ideas. That is, how we can become a muse for others.

I submit that if the audience, in their subconscious state, believes that Cobb was committing a crime, that belief would turn the audience against the film. Regardless of what Christopher Nolan intended, the "IDEAS" that Nolan plants in the story and in the audience's mind, grow, and leave us with a satisfying, true tale of redemption (as the film is also billed).

Here is why I think the audience accepts the moral premise of this film. Indeed Nolan, as all filmmakers do, perform Inception on our minds. Rather than being invasive against our will, true movies are our cultural muse, our inspiration to solving problems. Movies light candles in our darkness.

Saito (18m) offers “secrets” to Cobb to give to competitor, in exchange for inception of Fisher. Saito also offers Cobb safe passage home to his children.

Arthur, Saito and Cobb (19m) discuss "manual inception" and "true inspiration." Arthur says, “True inspiration is impossible to fake.” This statement links inspiration with inception.Saito (explaining how he will fix Cobb's immigration record) says: "Just like inception." The right word spoken to the right person can change that person's position on a subject. Such an event is not magic but just logical, as new evidence is brought into play. Now, Saito, unlike Cobb, is not involved in extraction or inception. What Saito suggests is that inception is like inspiration. And what is inspiration (which you cannot fake): is revealing the truth so that problems, created perhaps by a lack of a fresh perspective, go away.

Cobb (50m): “Positive emotion trumps negative emotion. We yearn for people to be reconciled, for catharsis. We need positive emotional logic.” That is the purpose of good story telling and filmmaking. It is what Nolan intends to do. It is what Nolan's alter ego, Cobb, intends to do with Fisher. It is a noble pursuit — inception and storytelling.

Cobb (29m) explains to Ariadne that he and his team create architecture (which is intended to inspire); and that it is the target’s subconscious that supplies the ideas.

Saito (41m) explains how Fisher Morrow is headed for world domination of energy, capable of blackmailing governments. Saito is after fair competition, not domination, not price fixing, not a secret.

Ariadne (81m) tells Cobb he is not responsible for the implanting the idea that destroyed Mal.

Cobb (82m) explains that he wants to expose the truth, rebuilding Fisher’s relationship with father & reveal truth about Uncle Browning. We never know if this is a sinister plot or a true plot. Could it be true? The idea would have come from fisher's subcon, and after the fade to black Fisher would take care of the disloyal Browning.

Audience Concludes: Cobb’s not responsible for what Fisher does with his life or business, and what Cobb is doing is inspiring Fisher, not controlling him.

SUMMARY
This has my best explanation of why INCEPTION, a film that was very hard to follow, and received a unusual amount of street criticism, won over it's audience. While the physical storyline and hook of the movie is initial intriguing and gets people into the theater, it is ultimate the following points that give meaning to the story and allow audiences to leave the theater with satisfaction....and thus strong positive word of mouth promotion. (Nolan at the right.)

The story followed the fundamental structure of all good stories, creating for the audience a dramatic and emotional rhythm that was suspenseful and intriguing.
(Not discussed above): The movie embraces conventions from a variety of genres, thus making it accessible to many different audiences (sci-fi, suspense, thriller, love, drama, and high risky adventure.)
The moral premise is true and consistently followed in the arcs of all the main characters.
The ultimate "crime" of the physical premise is couched in terms and motivations that are mythical, noble, and morally acceptable to general audiences.
The film requires the audience to think and figure things out, thus engaging them intellectually. Audiences love to work and work out riddles...provided the solution is present.

Please share your thoughts in the com box below.