Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Movies

Movie Night: Amazing Grace

by Jimmy Hopper

Last night’s Riverwood Movie Night featured the movie, Amazing Grace. It depicted the life of William Wilburforce and the ending of the British slave trade. The movie was very thought provoking, and the issues raised by the film resonate with Christians today. Below are listed some potential questions and issues raised by the film. Give us your thoughts on these, and any others that come to mind.

• After the conversion of Wilburforce, he struggles with a choice as to whether to devote his life to God in Christian service or to enter politics and fight for the abolition of the slave trade. Is there a sense in which this is two versions of the same choice? At one point, Wilburforce is told to “be in the world, not of the world.” How does this relate, if at all, to the previous question?

• John Newton, after his conversion, became a popular and successful minister of a London church. He was very happily married, and his wife was obviously a large part of his life. In the movie, he is shown as guilt ridden, monkish, virtually alone, and filled with remorse. Is this the message of the hymn, Amazing Grace? Should, or even can, this be the true situation of the converted Christian?

• The lines of dialogue spoken by the Newton character; “I remember two things: I am a very great sinner and Christ is a very great Savior” were actually written by Newton. How can these be applied to the character as portrayed in the movie?

• Barbara Spooner tells Wilburforce that, as a young girl, she told her father that the sugar he gave her “had slave blood in it.” Can a comparison be made with third world labor in our day? In what ways are the issues the same and in what ways are they different?

• Wilburforce overcame an opium addiction that was fairly common in those days since it was an often prescribed pain medication (remember the poet, William Taylor Coleridge.) The movie indicates three sources for his victory over the drug: the cause he fought for, the support and love of Barbara, and his faith. Was this victory overplayed? Underplayed? Was it realistic?

• For a time, William Pitt dropped his support for the abolitionist cause due to his national responsibilities in the Napoleonic Wars. Should moral issues be set aside because of national issues? Would a French victory have impacted the cause of abolition positively or negatively? Do these type issues arise today? Is patriotism, or the perceived lack thereof, still evoked in today’s issues? You may want to consider the discussions about the previous movie, Hotel Rwanda as you consider this. Did Wilburforce accept Pitt’s decision?

• One of the stronger portrayals in the film was that of Charles Fox. He was shown as a crusty, effective politician who still had a heart for right. Are such types still around? How pervasive is the corrupting influence of power now? Is this related to a diminishing of Christian influence? Was Christianity the driving force for Fox as portrayed in the film?

• The British Empire’s economic dependence on the slave trade is a significant part of the dynamics of this movie. Are answers given in the movie to the money/politics conundrum? As in America’s “Great Depression,” was war the only answer to resolve the economic issues?

• Wilburforce was truly a committed Christian totally apart from the slavery issue and wrote several books on Christianity. These were not referred to in the movie. Was this lesser focus on Christianity necessary for dramatic continuity in the movie? Would giving his faith a greater part in the movie helped or hindered the theme and message? Did you feel that the Faith was well served in the movie?

• Many of the characters portrayed in the movie would be considered “dangerous liberals” in America’s current evangelical climate. Is there a sense in which true liberalism has changed? Is there a sense in which evangelistic Christianity has changed? Have both changed to a degree, and how?

Movies

The Academy Awards

by Jimmy Hopper

I keep confessing to “guilty pleasures” on this Blog so here comes another one: I enjoy watching the yearly Academy Awards presentation. It’s not easy to get past the narcissism, the obnoxious self importance, and the sense of entitlement that the AA presentations literally reek of, but I usually manage to do it with only a few snorts of derision. It never ceases to amaze me that people with such obvious talent can do and say the things that they do and say, but I’m a Calvinist so it definitely fits my theology.

I think the main reason I watch is because movies were such a big deal when I was growing up, Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz were released within a year of my birth and while I didn’t see the beginnings, I have certainly seen the growth and maturation of both the art and the craft. I have been entertained, excited, intellectually stimulated, and even, to use their word, enthralled, by movies for most of my life and my interest remains to this day.

I have not seen most of the movies and roles that were nominated yet since most of my movie watching now is via DVD, but I found some interesting aspects and comments in the presentation. First, I (and Jeff Miller, who called me) was absolutely shocked to see Cormac McCarthy in the audience. This would not be notable for most any other novelist but McCarthy has almost been the poster boy for reclusive writers. In addition, I have read a number of his brilliant novels and I almost can’t imagine a more unlikely group that he would rub shoulders with than that crowd. I suspect part of it had to do with the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, who produced and directed No Country for Old Men. Based on what I have heard, they followed the book very closely, which was smart because you almost can’t imagine anything more taut and suspenseful. The Coens are probably near the top of the talented list in Hollywood, as those of you who have viewed Oh Brother, Where Art Thou can attest, and McCarthy may have been drawn to them because of that talent.

They are also among the most self deprecating Hollywoodites around also, an incredibly easy tagline to obtain. While receiving the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, Joel Coen noted: “I think whatever success we’ve had in this area has been entirely attributable to how selective we are. We’ve only adapted Homer and Cormac McCarthy.” There’s obviously more to it than that but that was a great comment to make to Hollywood and the world.

Movies

Darth Vader Becomes A Presbyterian

by Tim Lien

Finally embracing the concept of total depravity, Darth Vader has suddenly become one of us. Or maybe the whole Presbyterian denomination has migrated unwittingly to the Dark Side. Confused? This will clear things up, here.

Movies

Movie Night at Riverwood - Babette’s Feast

by Jimmy Hopper

Babette’s Feast is literally a feast of theological and human insight played out in this beautiful movie. The overriding theme is that the totality and immensity of God’s grace and mercy allows us to live in joy and with grace and alone gives us the ability to forgive others. The corollary is that seeing grace as miserly, narrow and needing our works to be complete causes Christians to be narrow minded, joyless and unforgiving. Here are some questions of interest to interact with and address, but given the depth of the movie, you probably have other ideas to put forth. Also, your impressions of the movie as a movie and as theology would be very interesting. Let everyone know what you think about the movie and the idea of grace it puts out.

• The hymn of the little church contained their credo and spoke of the coming of the new Jerusalem at the end of time. Did the church members’ almost total concentration on this improve their ministry or did it in fact create obstacles in their mind?

• The hymn uses Jesus’ illustration of giving your son a stone when he asks for bread. Is there an irony in singing this given their concentration on austerity as being proper and “holy” before the feast?

• The most enthusiastic participant at the dinner and the one who delivers the speech about the grace of God is the worldly general. Why is this the case? Consider this in the light of the story in Luke 7 in which the one forgiven much loves much.

• Martine and Philippa turn away from love and art respectively, believing that it would be displeasing to God. What, if anything, does the dinner and through it, the discovery of the richness of grace teach them about these decisions? What can we learn from it?

• There was much shock, concern and even revulsion about the turtle, the “reptile,” among the people, that was even expressed in the nightmare of the sister. Consider this in light of Peter’s vision about the sheet coming down from heaven with “unclean” animals in Acts 10. The turtle soup was enjoyed first by the outsider, the worldly General, then by the church. Is the “goodness” of God’s grace in His provision for Gentiles an adequate explanation for the focus of the movie on this aspect of the feast?

• The entrée at Babette’s Feast is Cailles en Sarcophage, or quail in a sarcophagus. A sarcophagus is a stone coffin. How does this relate to the imagery of communion and grace?

• Discord, dissension and backbiting had arisen in the church. How and why was this resolved by the Babette’s feast?

• Fictional allegories are by nature imperfect but there are a number of ways in which Babette is a type of Christ. Remembering the imperfect nature of allegory, consider some of the following aspects:

• Babette came to the austere coast from a much richer environment; one in which she held a more exalted place.

• She gave everything to the preparation of the feast, saving nothing back for herself. Are there any other aspects of the movie in which this connection exists?

• The dinner symbolizes both Holy Communion and the Wedding Supper of the Lamb. Consider ways in which this is the case. Does the little group of twelve stand in for the church universal in this imagery?

• At the end of the movie, Babette says that she prepared the feast for herself, not for the church, and that she is a “great artist.” In what way would this match the allegorical type of Christ spoken of above?

• Both Philippa and Babette are told that they will practice their wonderful arts of singing and cooking in Heaven in various parts of the movie. What does this indicate to us about Heaven and how does this relate to the ideas of the little Church and the overall theme of God’s overwhelming grace?

Movies

Movie Night_The Day the Earth Stood Still

by Bob Thornton

Questions for discussion: 1) Klaatu has been described as a Christ-like figure. What is the first evidence in the film that this is so?
(Hint: Pay close attention to the suit he “borrows” from the cleaners.) 2) How are the people in authority on Earth portrayed? Is this a fair representation? 3) Klaatu’s home is portrayed as a civilization without wars. Is this a realistic goal for mankind? Did
Christ come to bring this kind of “peace”? 4) What are some of the personality traits that Klaatu exhibits which make him a Christ-like figure? 5) Do you see any Christian parallels in the robot Gort? If so, what are they? 6) Does Klaatu’s final message to mankind have a Christian theme? Why or why not?

Movies

Movie Night: The Painted Veil

by Jimmy Hopper

As noted in the bulletin this morning, we are providing a forum on the Riverblog to discuss our current Movie Night movie, The Painted Veil. The suggestions below are just that, suggestions, and everyone is free to discuss any ideas as comments. Please join in with your thoughts on the important issues raised by this movie.

• Given the circumstances, do you feel that Kitty’s acceptance of Walter’s proposal was appropriate? Should she have foreseen what would eventually happen to her in a marriage in which she admittedly did not love her husband?

• Following that line of thought, Kitty states that “If a man doesn’t have what it takes to make a woman love him, that’s his fault.” Is this simply self-justification or is there a sense in which this idea is a staple of western culture? Do we go into marriage thinking that it is our partner’s responsibility to make us happy?

• Characterize Walter’s response to the affair. Is the trip to the village simply revenge, or does he have some idea of redemption for her and perhaps for himself in work and self-sacrifice?

• Waddington(Toby Jones) is developed in depth after seeming to be the quintessential “gone native” type. How do you feel that he has come to have peace with himself and his circumstances? Does he truly love his Chinese mistress and his life or do you feel that he has “settled” for something less than hoped for? How important to Kitty is his interaction with her?

• The Mother Superior (Diana Rigg) is from a higher social class than Kitty and had her own “tainted affair” before taking Catholic orders. Do you feel this was out of religious conviction or was her reason redemption through service, and through suffering? She speaks of love and duty as a response to grace. Do you agree? Do you feel that she understands Kitty or does she make erroneous assumptions about her? Is her attitude and life helpful to Kitty in her dilemma?

• Kitty asks in the movie, “Does anyone really fall in love with virtue?” Did Walter’s self sacrificing work in the cholera epidemic cause her to fall in love with him or did it change her attitude about life so that she could fall in love with her husband? Also, is Kitty’s redemption through service, love or both? Why do you think so?

• The title is from a poem by Percy Bysche Shelley. The stanza goes as follows:

Lift not the painted veil which those who live

Their shadows, o’er the chasm, sightless and drear.

Does the overall effect of the movie state this idea? Is Shelley’s poem more nihilistic than the conclusion you got or is the ending of the movie more upbeat?

Movies

Movie Commentary - Becket

by Jimmy Hopper

As noted in the bulletin this morning, we are providing a forum on the Riverblog to discuss our current Movie Night movie, Becket. The suggestions below are just that, suggestions, and everyone is free to discuss any ideas as comments. Please join in with your thoughts on the important issues raised by this movie.

One of the great questions of medieval Europe was that of the power of the church as opposed to the power of the throne. There was never a question of which was predominate in spiritual matters, but as the Church increased in secular power, essentially being the biggest landowner and capitalist in England; this conflict between church and state became more pronounced and nuanced.

As a way to improve his odds in this game, Henry II gave Thomas Becket, his friend and already Chancellor of the Land, the role of Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the English Church. Becket, to Henry’s surprise and even shock, took his position as Archbishop most seriously, and precipitated the dramatic events portrayed in this film.

Listed below are some potential discussion questions relating to the movie. We welcome your discussion and comments.

• Henry and Thomas Becket were, in history as well as in this film, great friends and companions if not perhaps great carousers together. In fact, Becket has been described as a “buddy movie gone bad.” Is Henry’s despair, anger and remorse believable as portrayed? Does Becket display any of the same emotions, or is his new allegiance total?

• There is a secondary plot of racism in the Saxon-Norman conflict in the movie. This was not a part of the historical story of Becket since he was, in actuality, a middle class Norman instead of a Saxon peasant. Does this side plot add to the movie? Does it detract from it? Is it even a factor in either Becket’s decision, Henry’s anger, or in the resulting events of the “rebellion?”

• The principle that was behind the Church/state feud was investiture, the right of the church to appoint their own officials and make the rules that the Church will operate under. The criminal punishment case was only a manifestation of this principle. Is there any lingering examples of this type of argument today, both from the secular and sacred side? Consider tax codes and church property rights as well as the as Christian education, vouchers, etc.

• Paul writes that “The king does not bear the sword for nothing.” Becket held clergy to a different standard than the King’s justice. Is there any sense in which this discrepancy could ever be a viable option? Was it then?

• Peter’s statement to the Sanhedrin was that “he must obey God rather than man” when he was told to stop speaking the truth about Christ. Martin Luther would make the same type of statement some four centuries later. Is this the ground Becket stakes out to make his stand, or are other factors involved?

• Church involvement is state affairs is a big issue in America today. Does Becket address this in any way or are the issues too different. Are there areas in which the Church should have more than an individual involvement in state affairs?

• There is a historical question as to whether Henry intended the “murder in the cathedral.” What do you think based strictly on the movie?

Movies

Movie Commentary - “Hotel Rwanda”

by Jimmy Hopper

As noted in the bulletin this morning, we are providing a forum on the Riverblog to discuss our current Movie Night movie, Hotel Rwanda. The suggestions below are just that, suggestions, and everyone is free to discuss any ideas as comments. Please join in with your thoughts on the important concerns raised by this movie.

There was considerable criticism of Evangelicals at the time of these events and even some criticism of their indifference/disdain at the release of this movie. Do you feel this criticism was warranted?

In a current national intervention, a vicious dictator was overthrown. There is a divide there between Sunni/Shite as there was in Rwanda between Tutu/Hutsi. When should a nation involve itself in the affairs of other nations? Are humanitarian reasons a sufficient cause?

Paul Rusesabagina responded to the evil around him in a positive way. We know that he and his wife were Christians. How do we respond as Chrstians to evil? Do we have a choice, given the tenets of our faith? Did Paul really have a choice?

The United Nations was a big player in these events. Were they effective in any way or was it politics as usual? How did the Nick Nolte character respond? Did he wish he was able to respond differently?

Paul, in an attempt to protect his wife, temporarily alienated himself from her. What does this incident say about the strength and nature of thei marriage?

A European journalist who covered both the Bosnian genocide and the Rwanda story spoke of how appalled he was in Bosnia, but caught himself thinking in Rwanda, “They’re only African bodies.” Is this truly any different from the blantant racism of the Hutus that led to the genocide? What should the Christian’s response to racism be throughout a fallen world?

William Faulkner once wrote, “The past is not dead. In fact, it is not even past.” Is this quotation proven out considering the roots of the genocide in the Belgian colonization of Rwanda? Is this applicable to situations in America today?

Let us hear from you!

Movies

Guest Movie Review

by Clay Staggs

I think that many of the readers of this Blog will know the guest reviewer here, George Kelley. George emailed me a review of the new Mel Gibson film Apocalypto. I reproduce here his exact review, with his permission.

I saw Apocalypto tonight and I was blown away. From a technical sense, it is stunning; an outstanding feat in filmmaking, with realistic portrayals, costumes and sets. You actually felt like you were watching life in a Mayan village. It is beautifully filmed, but it is also gory, shocking, and violent; with rapes, murders, human sacrifice and war all portrayed in the most brutal fashion. It isn’t for everyone, but it is for me. I always resented sanitized violence imposed on society by the squeamish and prudish amongst us. I think it is more dangerous for society to show a Gunsmoke type villain clutching a bloodless chest while falling than a realistic depiction would be; as the family friendly version minimizes the physical and emotional consequences of said acts, while the brutality of realistic violence gives an unfiltered view of the real world and it is more likely to repulse and dissuade. But others have a right to disagree, and to them I say, avoid this movie.

Just as Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was an overtly Catholic movie with its emphasis on Christ’s suffering and the relationship with Mary, this is a protestant movie. Specifically, this movie seems to have been written by Calvin and Hobbes, and I don’t mean the stuffed tiger and his buddy. The movie reeks of John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes.

Addressing the former, the Calvinistic themes, the characters (and specifically the protagonist of the story) seem to be guided by some sort of destiny (if ones viewpoint is secular), or a sovereign God (if one’s viewpoint is Christian). God is not mentioned per se, but much like the Lord of the Rings (another God filled movie with no mention of God), one can very much feel the sovereignty of God in all of the plot twists. Did the book of Esther not establish this same device, with all overt references to the God of the Jews left out explicitly but at the same time indelibly woven throughout the story? Same device here.

The Hobbesian references are more observable. Hobbes’ descriptions of every man at war against man, with life being nasty, brutish and short are frequent and not subtle. Power is the device used for one culture of savages (to us the viewer) to conquer another. You see it happening and yet you know from history that the victory is short lived with the Europeans on the way, who possess greater power with which to force change upon the existing civilization.

So what Christian messages did I take away?

1. The depravity of man. This film did not in any way shape or form embrace Rousseau’s notion of the “noble savage”, where man was free and good until the corrupting effects of civilization took hold. This primitive world is harsh, murderous and just as exploitative as Wal-Mart ever thought about being. One can reasonably take away from this movie that there are no innocents, only fallen creatures that are incapable of making themselves better.

2. The theme of vanities of vanities, all is vanity. Here we have one society of savages, overrun by a slightly more advanced society of savages. The progressive bunch has superior weapons and culture, when they transport their newly acquired slaves back home, we see the high and mighty men, women and children of the advanced society bidding on slaves and celebrating pagan rituals on technologically advanced pyramids. I use the word “savages”, as that is what it appears to my biased eye, yet reality forces me to acknowledge that my world of flat screen TVs, laptops and playstations might seem frivolous and primitive to the next generation a hundred years forward. And how must it all appear to a God that created the universe and is by definition infinite and lists quite the impressive resume in Job 38? While we build our temples, towers and toys, we lose sight of the fact that they will crumble. We, just as the “savages” of this movie do, love to command all to “Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” but as the poet Percy Shelley reminds us, our proclamation ultimately will stand and mock our perceived greatness with the ruins of our own monuments.

Which leads me to the last point…

3. “Put not your faith in princes and in sons of men, for there is no salvation”. This movie is about change, and the major example of such is the change from one dominant civilization to another. One group of Mayans conquers another group, yet they all fall to the Spanish. History tells us that the Spanish lose dominance to the British, who lose their influence to the United States. Do we really think that the government of the United States is eternal, especially when the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and Romans weren’t? The only constant in life, as in this movie, is the One who watches the sparrow when it falls, and allows the mighty to rise and fall under his eye.

Go see this movie, look past the gore and see its beauty and recognize its truth.