Children can learn the value of communicating via the arts and get practice doing such when various theatrical opportunities come to town. They can participate in this means of story-telling by stepping into a story, instead of just hearing or narrating it.
But parents should read scripts before auditions. Dramatic story-telling is a great art form. And it has more value than just for entertainment. I personally learned many life lessons via radio drama growing up, as we didn't have a television until my early teen years. The best stories are those which reflect real truth. Often, the stories which stand the test of time do so because of their success in exemplifying some particular truth(s). Messing with these stories in significant ways changes the message and seriously runs the risk of propagating a lie. When our children are told that big bad wolves, dragons, and ogres aren't really bad, then they're subtly told that evil, if it really exists, is simply in the imaginations of your old-fashioned simple-minded parents since they are probably the ones who first told you that dragons, big wolves, and self-centered step-mothers are bad.
I'd much rather my child play a bad guy in a good story than a good guy in a bad story. The stories that people like (and we prove it with our dollars) are those in which the heroes and heroines most closely resemble the lovers of the Song of Solomon. The Hero in that story is, of course, the Lord and Redeemer of the universe, Jesus Christ.
================================================================
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2013
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Solomon Reforming Hollywood
DVD Special Features, especially “Behind the Making of [Such-n-Such a Movie],” are for those who lean toward the overly-obsessed end of the movie loving spectrum. That said, a tid-bit or two from the Special Features has caused me to ponder again the general hypocrisy of Hollywood personnel. It seems the rare exception to find an actor or actress worthy of having a fan-base.
I have often been disappointed to discover the split-ups of Martin & Lewis, Lucy & Desi, Sonny & Cher, Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson & his wife of 20+ years. I’m glad Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello didn’t split up, until I learn that Laurel & his wife did divorce and Costello was conceited enough to think that he could comedy routines just as effectively with a cardboard cutout for a partner. Elizabeth Taylor & Mickey Rooney had multiple spouses. – Okay, so what’s new? But there’s a great irony worth realizing that still comes from even the best Hollywood productions.
The popular hero is still the one who is honorable, a man of his word, dependable, courageous, persistent, and faithful to his one girl. He doesn’t flirt with other girls along his journey to rescue his damsel in distress. Our favorite heroine, though she desperately longs for the day that her desire for love will be fulfilled, holds on to the promises of her lover to return to her. She does not put her body up for sale until the Mr. Right comes along. She’s a one-man woman for her one-woman man.
We like (and we prove it with our dollars) the heroes & heroines who most closely resemble the lovers of the Song of Solomon. The hero is Charles Ingalls (Little House on the Praire) but not Michael Landon, William Wallace (Braveheart) but not Mel Gibson, “Cinderella” (EverAfter) but not Drew Barrymore, ….
The characters played by these actors tell us that being faithful to your spouse is good and right. The plot becomes complicated if the main male character kisses another woman besides the one that we all know he is supposed to love. The main female character becomes jealously offended, rightly so, and we sympathize with her. So why doesn’t it bother us that Mel Gibson has kissed Madeleine Stowe, Helen Hunt, Joely Richardson, Catherine McCormack, Isabel Glasser, Jodie Foster, and how many more? Or that any particular actress has been kissed by numerous actors, most if not all of whom are not, haven’t been, nor will ever be her husband in real life. –- Where are the Roy Rogers & Dale Evans of today? Go, Kirk Cameron!
I look forward to the day when we can highly regard not only the character played but also the player.
I have often been disappointed to discover the split-ups of Martin & Lewis, Lucy & Desi, Sonny & Cher, Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson & his wife of 20+ years. I’m glad Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello didn’t split up, until I learn that Laurel & his wife did divorce and Costello was conceited enough to think that he could comedy routines just as effectively with a cardboard cutout for a partner. Elizabeth Taylor & Mickey Rooney had multiple spouses. – Okay, so what’s new? But there’s a great irony worth realizing that still comes from even the best Hollywood productions.
The popular hero is still the one who is honorable, a man of his word, dependable, courageous, persistent, and faithful to his one girl. He doesn’t flirt with other girls along his journey to rescue his damsel in distress. Our favorite heroine, though she desperately longs for the day that her desire for love will be fulfilled, holds on to the promises of her lover to return to her. She does not put her body up for sale until the Mr. Right comes along. She’s a one-man woman for her one-woman man.
We like (and we prove it with our dollars) the heroes & heroines who most closely resemble the lovers of the Song of Solomon. The hero is Charles Ingalls (Little House on the Praire) but not Michael Landon, William Wallace (Braveheart) but not Mel Gibson, “Cinderella” (EverAfter) but not Drew Barrymore, ….
The characters played by these actors tell us that being faithful to your spouse is good and right. The plot becomes complicated if the main male character kisses another woman besides the one that we all know he is supposed to love. The main female character becomes jealously offended, rightly so, and we sympathize with her. So why doesn’t it bother us that Mel Gibson has kissed Madeleine Stowe, Helen Hunt, Joely Richardson, Catherine McCormack, Isabel Glasser, Jodie Foster, and how many more? Or that any particular actress has been kissed by numerous actors, most if not all of whom are not, haven’t been, nor will ever be her husband in real life. –- Where are the Roy Rogers & Dale Evans of today? Go, Kirk Cameron!
I look forward to the day when we can highly regard not only the character played but also the player.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Recommended Viewing
Warning: Potential Spoilers Contained Herein
When the main character speaks, things appear. There is power in the written word, power to separate companions, power to reunite them. The man has hope that the written story will bring about such a reunion. But the dark enemy doesn’t want the story to finish as written, thus he sets about to destroy all such writings. So, for good to triumph, the author has to become a part of his own story, and he enters into the world which he created.
Am I talking about a particular principle contained within the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, or am I talking about the movie Inkheart*? Well, yes, both. That’s why I recommend that you and your children see this movie.
The more sensitive among us will likely wonder how I can recommend a movie in which one of the characters says, “… damn …,” and in which one scene briefly shows some water nymphs, probably played by three naked women (<-- I’m not absolutely certain about this – when you watch it, hit the Pause and Zoom buttons on your remote, so you can inform me … better yet, just ScreenIt). Well, … there you have it. I’m recommending it, because of its most obvious point.
When the main character speaks, things appear. There is power in the written word, power to separate companions, power to reunite them. The man has hope that the written story will bring about such a reunion. But the dark enemy doesn’t want the story to finish as written, thus he sets about to destroy all such writings. So, for good to triumph, the author has to become a part of his own story, and he enters into the world which he created.
Am I talking about a particular principle contained within the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, or am I talking about the movie Inkheart*? Well, yes, both. That’s why I recommend that you and your children see this movie.
The more sensitive among us will likely wonder how I can recommend a movie in which one of the characters says, “… damn …,” and in which one scene briefly shows some water nymphs, probably played by three naked women (<-- I’m not absolutely certain about this – when you watch it, hit the Pause and Zoom buttons on your remote, so you can inform me … better yet, just ScreenIt). Well, … there you have it. I’m recommending it, because of its most obvious point.Inkheart certainly is not a perfect replica of God’s story. – How could it be? – It does have its flaws. One of the main ones likely regards the author. The Inkheart author is initially doubtful of the potency of his story being spoken, he is a bumbler, and he is compelled to revise his story. God, however, knows best of all the power of His words, God makes no mistakes, and, thus, He needs make no revisions. His story is perfect the first time around.
The movie & story would have been far better if the Shadow had succeeded in killing the author, only to have the author come back to life, according to the story, and explain that it had to happen because he had written the perfect story. Upon taking a brief glance at the theme of her other writings, I cannot at present if ever commend the actual author, Cornelia Funke, for reasons not now given. Also, the idea of using a movie to promote reading books begs to be discussed, but that, too, will have to wait for another time.
The movie & story would have been far better if the Shadow had succeeded in killing the author, only to have the author come back to life, according to the story, and explain that it had to happen because he had written the perfect story. Upon taking a brief glance at the theme of her other writings, I cannot at present if ever commend the actual author, Cornelia Funke, for reasons not now given. Also, the idea of using a movie to promote reading books begs to be discussed, but that, too, will have to wait for another time.
* - Inkheart, book written by Cornelia Funke, movie presented by New Line Cinema, and directed/co-produced by Iain Softley, (distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, released 2009).
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A Character of Its Own
Have you ever heard a movie producer or director on the Special Features of a DVD say that the production sort of took on or became "a character of its own"? Or perhaps you've read an author saying that, in his novel, he had a particular character that was giving him trouble, that seemed to have a mind of his own, as if the author had some difficulty getting the character to do what the author wanted.
I think I understand what these are saying (at least generally, not necessarily from first-hand experience), which led me to wonder, "How is this phenomenon analogous to God's story-telling? Does God's story take on 'a character of its own'? Are there players in His story that don't play out their roles according to His direction?" Of course, your response to this probably depends upon how Calvinistic your perspectives are. Without having spent a lot of time on this, allow me to attempt some answers: It's not. No. Well, not really.
There are two reasons for which I say that such a phenomenon is not shared by God. 1) God is omniscient. 2) God is non-contradictory.
In the cases of the movie producer and the author, they are not omniscient. Although they are responsible for everything that goes into their projects, they don't really know every intricate detail of such projects. They do not possess infinite knowledge even on their very own subjects. -- God does.
The second reason that human authors have more trouble handling their characters than what God does (aside from God's omnipotence) is because of contradictions inherent in (likely all of) us humans. The less like God we are, the greater degree of contradiction in our lives. Human authors sometimes sense this contradiction (and thus reveal it by the afore-mentioned comments) because one part of them says that the nature of a particular character would lead that character to behave in a certain way and thus the book would not end as the author intends, but the desire of the author is to have the character enact a different behavior so that he can tell his story the way he wants. We may commend an author who acknowledges this challenge for exercising at least some honesty, even though he may proceed without appropriately resolving the contradiction. Perhaps this could best be clarified with an example.
Let's say an author writes a story where the main character is evil, executes monstrosities, retaliates against his victims' attempts for justice, and simply walks away at the end of the story. (I would bet such stories abound; my ignorance of a good example likely stems from my lack of enjoyment of such stories.) Sometimes it even seems that we are observing such depressing stories happening in real life right before our very eyes. Some of us even feel that we are experiencing such a story.
The Psalmist even acknowledges this: “I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth. … Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning. … When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; ….” – Psalm 73:3-9,12-14,16
So where is the inherent contradiction? Well, while the depressed author ends his story with the destroyer walking away, the Psalmist knows that this really isn't the end of the story. Notice that I didn't finish the last verse or chapter of the passage quoted above. Allow me to do so now: “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely Thou didst set them in slippery places: Thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when Thou awakest, Thou shalt despise their image. … For, lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from Thee. But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all Thy works.” – Psalm 73:16-20,27-28
God will vindicate and be vindicated. Justice will be served. Truth, beauty, goodness, love, and life will endure forever. -- Psalm 33:11, 117:2, 119:160, 135:13, 136:1-26, 145:13; I Peter 1:25
I think I understand what these are saying (at least generally, not necessarily from first-hand experience), which led me to wonder, "How is this phenomenon analogous to God's story-telling? Does God's story take on 'a character of its own'? Are there players in His story that don't play out their roles according to His direction?" Of course, your response to this probably depends upon how Calvinistic your perspectives are. Without having spent a lot of time on this, allow me to attempt some answers: It's not. No. Well, not really.
There are two reasons for which I say that such a phenomenon is not shared by God. 1) God is omniscient. 2) God is non-contradictory.
In the cases of the movie producer and the author, they are not omniscient. Although they are responsible for everything that goes into their projects, they don't really know every intricate detail of such projects. They do not possess infinite knowledge even on their very own subjects. -- God does.
The second reason that human authors have more trouble handling their characters than what God does (aside from God's omnipotence) is because of contradictions inherent in (likely all of) us humans. The less like God we are, the greater degree of contradiction in our lives. Human authors sometimes sense this contradiction (and thus reveal it by the afore-mentioned comments) because one part of them says that the nature of a particular character would lead that character to behave in a certain way and thus the book would not end as the author intends, but the desire of the author is to have the character enact a different behavior so that he can tell his story the way he wants. We may commend an author who acknowledges this challenge for exercising at least some honesty, even though he may proceed without appropriately resolving the contradiction. Perhaps this could best be clarified with an example.
Let's say an author writes a story where the main character is evil, executes monstrosities, retaliates against his victims' attempts for justice, and simply walks away at the end of the story. (I would bet such stories abound; my ignorance of a good example likely stems from my lack of enjoyment of such stories.) Sometimes it even seems that we are observing such depressing stories happening in real life right before our very eyes. Some of us even feel that we are experiencing such a story.
The Psalmist even acknowledges this: “I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth. … Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning. … When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; ….” – Psalm 73:3-9,12-14,16
So where is the inherent contradiction? Well, while the depressed author ends his story with the destroyer walking away, the Psalmist knows that this really isn't the end of the story. Notice that I didn't finish the last verse or chapter of the passage quoted above. Allow me to do so now: “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely Thou didst set them in slippery places: Thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when Thou awakest, Thou shalt despise their image. … For, lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish: Thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from Thee. But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all Thy works.” – Psalm 73:16-20,27-28
God will vindicate and be vindicated. Justice will be served. Truth, beauty, goodness, love, and life will endure forever. -- Psalm 33:11, 117:2, 119:160, 135:13, 136:1-26, 145:13; I Peter 1:25
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Gospel from The Princess Bride
.......A good story is good because it resembles the best story, which is, of course, the gospel of Christ’s kingdom redeeming the world as seen in history. A princess is separated from her Lover, Who promises to come, rescue her, and make her His bride. But the rescue involves swords, disguise, battles with giants, challenging the apparent authority, overwhelming odds, even torture. And alas! the Princess loses all hope when her Rescuer is unexpectedly killed. But can death stop the true love of the Lord Jesus Christ for The Princess Bride?* If we ignore for now some possible irreverence, what semblance of hope, truth, and good character may we find in The Princess Bride in comparison with God’s story?
.......Many men want to know, like Fred Savage’s character in the movie, "Is this a kissing book?" But the storyteller arouses us with descriptions of "fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles." Buttercup doesn’t expect to be swept off her feet by one who has always served her. But her discovery of the real meaning behind his expression, “As you wish,” may be compared to the believer’s discovery of God’s passionate intentions manifested through His abundant grace.
.......Then the Man must go away for a while. But He promises, “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3). Again he assures her, “Here this now: I will always come for you.” When she asks, “But how can you be sure?” he responds, "This is true love. Think this happens every day?"
.......And, sure enough, he does come for her, but not as expected. And though it may seem “inconceivable,” He doesn’t get thrown from a cliff by His enemies. Instead he snatches the princess away from her captors for a short while, only to be captured himself and taken into the Pit of Despair – the Garden of Gethsemane. Life is sucked out of our hero through torturous means; a great cry spreads throughout the world. The last glimmer of hope is provided by the miracle worker, who has reason for a vendetta against the prince of this world. A little time passes; a Maximum Miracle occurs. Our hero lives!
.......However, despite her best efforts and intentions, it seems the princess is bound forever to be separated from her true love because of the “mawwiage” forced upon her by the mal-intending prince. But all is restored when the false-hearted prince is bound, a father is avenged upon the death of the SOB, a successor is named to carry on the redeemer’s work, and the princess bride is reminded that “there is a shortage of perfect breasts in this world. ‘Twould be a pity to damage” hers.
.......So whenever the Bride is tempted to doubt her Lord, saying, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3:4), we will remind her of what he says: “I told you I would always come for you. Why didn’t you wait for me?” And when she says, “Well, … You were dead,” we will again show her that "death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while." After all has been restored and the two lovers are reunited to live happily ever after, it will be told throughout the ages that "since the invention of the kiss, there have been five kisses that were rated the most passionate, the most pure, –- this one left them all behind." We will finally be convinced that, however great might be “a nice MLT –- mutton-lettuce-&-tomato sandwich –- when the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe – tht-tht-tht! they’re so perky; I love that,” –- “true love is the greatest thing in the world!”
* - The Princess Bride, written by William Goldman, presented by Act III Communications, produced by Andrew Scheinman and Rob Reiner. (copyrighted 1987 The Princess Bride Limited. MGM Home Entertainment, 2500 Broadway, Santa Monica, CA 90404-3061.)
.......Many men want to know, like Fred Savage’s character in the movie, "Is this a kissing book?" But the storyteller arouses us with descriptions of "fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles." Buttercup doesn’t expect to be swept off her feet by one who has always served her. But her discovery of the real meaning behind his expression, “As you wish,” may be compared to the believer’s discovery of God’s passionate intentions manifested through His abundant grace.
.......Then the Man must go away for a while. But He promises, “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3). Again he assures her, “Here this now: I will always come for you.” When she asks, “But how can you be sure?” he responds, "This is true love. Think this happens every day?"
.......And, sure enough, he does come for her, but not as expected. And though it may seem “inconceivable,” He doesn’t get thrown from a cliff by His enemies. Instead he snatches the princess away from her captors for a short while, only to be captured himself and taken into the Pit of Despair – the Garden of Gethsemane. Life is sucked out of our hero through torturous means; a great cry spreads throughout the world. The last glimmer of hope is provided by the miracle worker, who has reason for a vendetta against the prince of this world. A little time passes; a Maximum Miracle occurs. Our hero lives!
.......However, despite her best efforts and intentions, it seems the princess is bound forever to be separated from her true love because of the “mawwiage” forced upon her by the mal-intending prince. But all is restored when the false-hearted prince is bound, a father is avenged upon the death of the SOB, a successor is named to carry on the redeemer’s work, and the princess bride is reminded that “there is a shortage of perfect breasts in this world. ‘Twould be a pity to damage” hers.
.......So whenever the Bride is tempted to doubt her Lord, saying, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3:4), we will remind her of what he says: “I told you I would always come for you. Why didn’t you wait for me?” And when she says, “Well, … You were dead,” we will again show her that "death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while." After all has been restored and the two lovers are reunited to live happily ever after, it will be told throughout the ages that "since the invention of the kiss, there have been five kisses that were rated the most passionate, the most pure, –- this one left them all behind." We will finally be convinced that, however great might be “a nice MLT –- mutton-lettuce-&-tomato sandwich –- when the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe – tht-tht-tht! they’re so perky; I love that,” –- “true love is the greatest thing in the world!”
* - The Princess Bride, written by William Goldman, presented by Act III Communications, produced by Andrew Scheinman and Rob Reiner. (copyrighted 1987 The Princess Bride Limited. MGM Home Entertainment, 2500 Broadway, Santa Monica, CA 90404-3061.)
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Plagiarism All Over the Place
“There is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, Holy Bible, KJV) Two nights ago, my family enjoyed watching The Legend of Zorro (starring Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones), the sequel to The Mask of Zorro. One of the screen-writing elements which have been in so many movies, if not in almost every movie, occurred in this one as well. If you’ve watched very many movies at all without disengaging your brain, you’ve likely noticed this particular element – when the good guy gets caught by the bad guys, they never terminate him immediately, even when they have the opportunity. This is an extreme irony.
Often these same bad guys, earlier in the story, were killing innocent people “at the drop of a hat” (i.e., without even a second thought). Although not always the case, these innocent people are often people to whom we the viewers haven’t become too closely attached emotionally because their death would be too unpleasant for us (making the story less appealing). On occasion, however, the victim will be someone of whom we had become fond (though almost never the main hero); this is likely done to make us hate the bad guy even more, thus, rejoicing all the more (as my son did quite audibly with Zorro) when the good guy takes out the bad guy.
But back to my point about extreme irony…. The rancher whose deed the bad guy really wants for some reason, the rancher who poses so little of an offensive threat to the bad guy, is killed without the slightest hint of remorse; but when the bad guy later catches the good guy off guard, the good guy who poses the greatest offensive threat to the bad guy, this same bad guy suddenly has second thoughts about immediately terminating his opponent. (Oh, he plans to terminate him all right, but he wants to do it slowly to make it more painful for the good guy, or some other convenient reason like that.)
So what’s all this have to do with plagiarism? Well, first let’s ask “WHY?!” Why in the world do the screen-writers throw in some sort of “all-of-a-sudden-I’m-gonna-think-twice-about-my-actions” perspective from the bad guy smack dab in the middle of the story’s climax? How realistic is that? No wonder the good guy always wins! All you have to do is throw in some (additional) inconsistency in the bad guy’s character, and your story can always turn out well in the end. Well, I’ll tell you why: this is the unspoken divine element of the story.
Even years ago, I used to think that one of the basic differences between good Christian stories and good non-Christian stories was simply that one acknowledged the presence and work of God and the other didn’t. (I’ll expound on this further in a moment but first…) Basically, the reason David was able to kill Goliath is the same reason that John Wayne was always able to outdraw his opponent – because God made it so. Only, David acknowledged this truth loudly, and John Wayne did not.
As I've thought about it, I’m convinced even more that this is so. In the most real, most true Story of all, it is impossible for evil to ultimately triumph over good… because God is good. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17, Holy Bible, KJV) Goodness (and evil, for that matter, but that’s another discussion) is NOT an absolute independent of any and all sources. Walking an old lady across the street is not a good deed just because it is; there’s a reason it’s good. That reason is God, Who is ontologically Good. (That is, Goodness is His very nature; It’s Who He is.) God is Goodness. Therefore, He cannot but triumph over evil. (I’m beginning to think that evil cannot even exist apart from Him. I think He probably created evil – Isaiah 45:7 – as another means of manifesting His goodness, to make us rejoice all the more when the Good Guy takes out the bad guy.)
The better the screen-writer becomes at story-telling, the closer he comes to “plagiarizing” God’s Story. How far into a 2.5-hour movie do you have to watch before some problem surfaces? Unless the movie is quite slow-moving, it’s not very long before the viewer becomes very suspicious, if not fully aware, of the problem. (Then the rest of the movie is spent developing that problem further and/or bringing it to a resolution.) And how long did it take for Evil to show its ugly face in God’s Story? ... In chapter 3, out of 1,193 chapters!
Why do we connect with and feel sorry for the poor rancher who was so heartlessly terrorized? Because we can relate to him; indeed, because we are (or were) related to him. So now we hate Evil all the more, even though we invited him. We welcomed him, and he robbed us blind. And now we rejoice when the Good Guy crushes the bad guy’s head, and the Good Guy’s redemption of us is all the more glorious!
This is why Good must triumph over Evil. This is why the bad guy can never fully carry out his hatred against the good guy. This is why the screen-writers can’t help but turn the tables on the bad guy for no apparent reason – the reason is not apparent because they hate admitting that God tells the greatest Story and the best they can do is copy It. – They have to do it; it would not be realistic, otherwise. God is real. And He’s really good!
Often these same bad guys, earlier in the story, were killing innocent people “at the drop of a hat” (i.e., without even a second thought). Although not always the case, these innocent people are often people to whom we the viewers haven’t become too closely attached emotionally because their death would be too unpleasant for us (making the story less appealing). On occasion, however, the victim will be someone of whom we had become fond (though almost never the main hero); this is likely done to make us hate the bad guy even more, thus, rejoicing all the more (as my son did quite audibly with Zorro) when the good guy takes out the bad guy.
But back to my point about extreme irony…. The rancher whose deed the bad guy really wants for some reason, the rancher who poses so little of an offensive threat to the bad guy, is killed without the slightest hint of remorse; but when the bad guy later catches the good guy off guard, the good guy who poses the greatest offensive threat to the bad guy, this same bad guy suddenly has second thoughts about immediately terminating his opponent. (Oh, he plans to terminate him all right, but he wants to do it slowly to make it more painful for the good guy, or some other convenient reason like that.)
So what’s all this have to do with plagiarism? Well, first let’s ask “WHY?!” Why in the world do the screen-writers throw in some sort of “all-of-a-sudden-I’m-gonna-think-twice-about-my-actions” perspective from the bad guy smack dab in the middle of the story’s climax? How realistic is that? No wonder the good guy always wins! All you have to do is throw in some (additional) inconsistency in the bad guy’s character, and your story can always turn out well in the end. Well, I’ll tell you why: this is the unspoken divine element of the story.
Even years ago, I used to think that one of the basic differences between good Christian stories and good non-Christian stories was simply that one acknowledged the presence and work of God and the other didn’t. (I’ll expound on this further in a moment but first…) Basically, the reason David was able to kill Goliath is the same reason that John Wayne was always able to outdraw his opponent – because God made it so. Only, David acknowledged this truth loudly, and John Wayne did not.
As I've thought about it, I’m convinced even more that this is so. In the most real, most true Story of all, it is impossible for evil to ultimately triumph over good… because God is good. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17, Holy Bible, KJV) Goodness (and evil, for that matter, but that’s another discussion) is NOT an absolute independent of any and all sources. Walking an old lady across the street is not a good deed just because it is; there’s a reason it’s good. That reason is God, Who is ontologically Good. (That is, Goodness is His very nature; It’s Who He is.) God is Goodness. Therefore, He cannot but triumph over evil. (I’m beginning to think that evil cannot even exist apart from Him. I think He probably created evil – Isaiah 45:7 – as another means of manifesting His goodness, to make us rejoice all the more when the Good Guy takes out the bad guy.)
The better the screen-writer becomes at story-telling, the closer he comes to “plagiarizing” God’s Story. How far into a 2.5-hour movie do you have to watch before some problem surfaces? Unless the movie is quite slow-moving, it’s not very long before the viewer becomes very suspicious, if not fully aware, of the problem. (Then the rest of the movie is spent developing that problem further and/or bringing it to a resolution.) And how long did it take for Evil to show its ugly face in God’s Story? ... In chapter 3, out of 1,193 chapters!
Why do we connect with and feel sorry for the poor rancher who was so heartlessly terrorized? Because we can relate to him; indeed, because we are (or were) related to him. So now we hate Evil all the more, even though we invited him. We welcomed him, and he robbed us blind. And now we rejoice when the Good Guy crushes the bad guy’s head, and the Good Guy’s redemption of us is all the more glorious!
This is why Good must triumph over Evil. This is why the bad guy can never fully carry out his hatred against the good guy. This is why the screen-writers can’t help but turn the tables on the bad guy for no apparent reason – the reason is not apparent because they hate admitting that God tells the greatest Story and the best they can do is copy It. – They have to do it; it would not be realistic, otherwise. God is real. And He’s really good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
