World Cup 2010 Game 5: England 1, United States 1

In the qualifying matches before the World Cup the United States had a tendency to give up early goals. For months we heard commentators say that they couldn't do that at the next level and get by. In the week before the tournament starts one English pundit claimed that England was more talented than the United States at every position "except goalie."

The pessimists--and oddly most soccer fans are, at heart, pessimists--had to love this game. The USA gave up the early goal, and one good feel the deflation like one had inflated an air mattress with only breath and seen it popped by a pin. Then Clint Dempsey put the shot on goal and well, never has the maxim been truer that the only shot that can't go in is the one you don't take.

The second half was tense for the U.S., particularly the final moments where England was pushing forward and the United States opted for counter attacks rather than possession, giving the ball back.

I think the people who have to love this result the most are the Slovenia rooters, and both Algeria and Slovenia have to feel like if they can get a win against the other that the group is wide open. The United States and England will be favored in both their other pool games, but the United States has always played better as underdogs than favorites.

The trash talking will continue on both sides of the Atlantic with the Brits claiming they were clearly superior and the United States saying, simply, "scoreboard." The United States, for all its collapses in World Cup's past have now been recipients of two of the most memorable "soft" goals in pool play: Green's Buckneresque whiff on Dempsey's grounder and the Colombian "own goal" that allowed the United States to beat the dark horse favorite in 1994. (Though less infamous, don't forget that the US's 1-1 tie with Italy was the result of an own goal as well; clearly if this were the the NBA lottery the conspiracy theorists would be abuzz.)

One other note about the play. In qualifiers, the most notable difference I see between the United States and other teams is precision passing and first touch control. I noticed something else watching England which was how well their offensive players moved without the ball. It's always easier to pass to space than time a pass to the person, and while one sees a little of that from the U.S. (and much more than in year's past), the England side was truly remarkable in how the spacing seems more second nature than instantaneous. England is a dangerous side, but much like a hockey team with a poor goalie (cough, Capitals) or a baseball bombers with poor pitching, one has to think that below average goal keeping will eventually bite you at the wrong moment.

World Cup 2010 Game 4: Argentina 1, Nigeria 0

In his most underrated book, Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby writes: "I fell in love with football as I was later to fall in love with women; suddenly, inexplicably, uncritically..."

While I don't share the passion for the sport that Hornby does, I recognize the quixotic alignment of factors that goes into developing an affinity. This is one reason why, as arbitrary as some sports allegiances are, they are very, very hard to change. It would be nice if I could just stop being an Orioles fan or a Wizards fan, but that's made up for the fact that I never much followed college basketball until I graduated from High School and Tommy Amaker, the star of the High School team went to some school called Duke.

I have vague recollections of the '78 World Cup (my family was living in Colombia at the time), but it was really Mexico '86 (or "ochenta seis" as the commercials said) that provided my seminal memories of the world's game. Eighty-six was, of course, Diego Maradona's zenith, and it was one of those situations where the neophyte didn't realize he was watching some of the best soccer of all time and figured every game would have something like Diego's runs through England and Belgium.

Maradona isa bit of a flake these days, and given Argentina's underachievement in qualifying, it was easy enough to hope that a usually dangerous Argentine side would be neutralized by their own internal chaos.

Hah. Instead the Blue and White looked like the proverbial pro team that underachieved during a regular season but could hit a switch in the playoffs. Somehow in the week leading up to the Cup, ESPN elevated Lionel Messi from one of the best players in the world to the consensus best, and he looked the part, running through Nigeria, though he missed several opportunities to finish.

There is usually at least one African side that overachieves at the World Cup, and I thought, based on underrating Argentina that Nigeria might be it, but they seemed flat here.

World Cup 2010 Game 3: S. Korea 2, Greece 0

My resolution to watch every game is tested in the second day as a 7:30 a.m. start time gets confounded by my leaving my phone (which I use as a portable alarm clock) in the other room. First time in a long time I've been happy that my cat likes to cry in the morning to wake us up.

First upset of the tournament, I guess. Greece could be in real trouble, although I'll reserve judgment until I see Argentina play two solid games in a row.

There were a lot of empty seats in the stadium. Enough that the announcers even mentioned it, which is one difference between international announcers and American ones. I understand the world economy is what it is, but I think FIFA ought to be concerned. Of course, this may just be the case of the teams playing not having huge fan bases or a lot of international appeal for the local fans.

World Cup 2010 Game 2: France 0, Uruguay 0

Not too many people know that my family lived in Uruguay for several years in the 1960s. I have no memory of it, being a newborn at the time. My brother went back for a visit awhile back and bought me a hat to commemorate. Here is a picture of me wearing my Uruguay hat while watching the game. Yeah, I know the bill is over my eyes, but I was trying to get the sun design in the photo.

I tried for several months to make this my "lucky hat" at disc golf tournaments, but it had no such luck in it. Neither, apparently, did it have any mojo against the French.

The game was pretty dull, actually, but I think both sides wanted a draw. That puts the pressure on Mexico, I think, since both France and Uruguay are capable of beating South Africa, which means they can play for a draw against Mexico and Mexico will need to play for a win against one of them. Then again, past history shows that can be risky as South Africa could pop in a goal against either side.

Honestly, I saw about 1/2 of the Uruguay-Argentina qualifier, and I'm not sure how this team ever scores.

I was driving to the store today, and I'm already sick of sycophantic Americans complaining about the World Cup. You know, I don't particularly like Nascar, so you know what I do? I don't watch it. You know what I don't do? Moan endlessly about how "boring" it is and how loud the crowds are.

Uruguay is one of only seven (I think) countries to have ever won a World Cup, actually having done it twice. I think the South American teams will be used to playing at difficult away venues, but for some reason I don't think they'll be much of a threat here. Strange being in Africa, you don't get the whole "a European team can't win in South American venue/a South American team can't win in Europe" issue. I think this year will be a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament...a lot of parity making games hard to call.

World Cup 2010 Game 1: South Africa 1, Mexico 1

I've attended one World Cup game in person, when Mexico defeated Bulgaria in 1986. Probably because of that experience, I've never quite disliked the Mexican side the way some USA or Concacaf fans do. (Though, to be honest, the team makes it hard for me to not dislike then with their thuggish fouls when playing the USA and boorish behavior.) Then again, I'm one of those rare Duke fans who doesn't necessarily root against UNC when they are playing someone else.

It seemed during the draw that everyone wanted the USA in the bracket with South Africa since it was allegedly the weakest team from that pool. Yet, oddly, the host nation has next lost an opening game, so one wonders about that. On the one hand, of course, they might have finished better than Mexico against some shaky defense. On the other hand, Mexico got robbed of a goal on a phantom offside call (though apparently it was not a bad call after all because the goal keeper was on the other side--rare play), and one wonders if the USA would have had the tenacity to fight through that sort of bad call or would have just resigned themselves to "here we go again."

It was an exciting opener that included a late deflection off the goal post. With France not looking good in qualifying yet being France, this group looks like it could go any way. I would not be surprised to see any two teams come out of the group. Pressure is solidly on Mexico who has had their game against the weakest side of the group...yet they withstood the pressure of playing the opener.

Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010

Lots of good festival coverage from Full Frame at 1More Film Blog.

The films I got a chance to screen this week (some reviews already up, others forthcoming), include:


Chairmaker
Casino Jack and the United States of Money (Alex Gibney!)
Family Affair (plus interview with Chico Colvard)
Genius Within: The Inner Life of Glen Gould
Google Baby
The Invention of Dr. Nakamats
Ito--A Diary of an Urban Priest
Last Train Home
Life Extended
My Perestroika
The Oath
Photo & Copyright by G.P. Fieret
Regretters
The Space You Leave
Stonewall Uprising (plus interview with Kate Davis and David Heilbroner)
Surviving Hitler: A Love Story
Today is Better than Two Tomorrows
Do It Again
Waking Sleeping Beauty

Why I Refuse to take the OFA Volunteer Pledge

It's no secret on this blog that I was (and am) an enthusiastic Obama supporter and that I find many of the political tactics and gamesmanship techniques of the GOP to be scandalously hypocritical and corrosive.

But in the last two weeks I've received several e-mails from OFA (Obama For America) asking me to pledge volunteers hours to campaign or work for candidates who come out in favor of Health Care Reform.

The argument goes like this...the Republicans are spreading all sorts of dirty tricks and misinformation about those who come out in favor of Health Care Reform. True enough. Blue dog democrats are afraid that this will be a polarizing issue that may be used against them in elections. Therefore, if there is a groundswell of support from people saying, "Do this, and I'll promise to work for your re-election" that might embolden scared or worried Dems to do the right thing.

Um...sorry, but shouldn't it be the other way around? I vote for people who actually do what they say they will do. Do the right thing, even in the face of opposition, and I'll work for you. Don't tell me that if I pledge to work for you, you'll do the right thing.

One fundamental issue I have with the pledge drive is that it implies that if the volunteer pledges fall short, the Congressmen and Congresswomen are somehow justified in not voting for health care. This basically acknowledges what everyone already thinks: that the driving principle is always and only my own relection. Politics as usual, anyone?

I have a question about the Obama White House. Forget the Republicans, can it get tough with its own party? In issues like Lieberman's chairmanship, the Obama administration has sure looked to me like it is more concerned with preserving a coalition than actually using the coalition to advance an agenda. The GOP knows that and thus continues to patiently play the politics of obstruction--who cares if that means playing chicken with the economy or hurts those they claim to represent? But here's the thing, the moderate Dems know it too, and it is human nature to take the path of least resistance. Where's the upside of taking an unpopular position if I know that my own party isn't really going to push back at me if I refuse to do so?

Hey, OFA, you want me to work for you, then fight. Don't tell me you'll fight if I promise to have your back. I worked for you already. I canvassed in the last election. I got the word out, I offered my time for voter registration and to take people to the polls. And Obama carried North Carolina by the slimmest of margins. If you are a coach or a leader, then sometimes the biggest enemy is not the opposing team but the starter who sits on the bench and says "I refuse to play because you are drawing up a play for Tony Kukoc." If there are Dems that are worried about being unpopular by coming out for health care, don't try to appease them by asking me to work hard for them (and thereby give positive reinforcement to negative behavior), say instead: "Fine. Try winning the election without party support. We'll back a primary challenger who is willing to vote for Health Care reform." Worst case scenario, that splits the vote and a Republican wins, eating into the meaningless (because unused) majority. Best case scenario, you have a candidate who is not a weasel and, maybe, one I am willing to volunteer for.

Borders, Welcome to the Customer Service Hall of Shame

On occasion I use this blog to point out the shockingly bad customer service of various companies I've had the displeasure to do business with.

Today's entry has to do with Borders.

It always surprises me, although it probably shouldn't, how so many of the companies that make this list are second or third banana to some major competitor. One would expect, as the slogan goes, for number two (or three) to "try harder," to attempt to make up in service for what they cannot match in price, location, or convenience. Alas, no.

Through taking some online polls, I got a reward of $15 in "Borders Bucks" added to my Borders Rewards card. I waited until I received my e-mail confirmation and headed to the store--about a twenty minute drive.

After perusing the shelves, I took my items to the cashier, who swiped my rewards card and told me that I did not have any Borders Bucks on it. I told her about the reward, and she said that this had been a problem--if I had a print out of the e-mail she could "give it to me." (Hmmm, "give it" like a gift, see.) Of course there was no printer or e-mail access there, so I went home and printed the e-mail.

The next day, my friend and I were going to the movie, so we stopped at Borders to pick up a book for my wife. I got it, took it to the cashier, who again told me that despite my e-mail confirmation, my card had no buck on it. I explained that I had been in there yesterday, had been told to bring a copy of the e-mail, and presented it. She then informed me that the e-mail was not acceptable because too many people printed them off and tried to use them to double dip. Why had I been told to bring it, then? (Perhaps to get me back in the store in hopes that, when I had book at cashier I'd just say, "Oh well," and pay cash?)

She said I had to call Borders "customer service" number. I used my cell phone, and well, you know that score. Some call center in India with a voice activated menu that told me call volumes were high, my call was important, but it could be a thirty minute wait to talk to a representative. Couldn't miss the movie, so for the second day in a row, I left without my item. (My wife wanted the book, so I actually went down the street to Barnes & Noble to buy it.)

Anyhow, I finally called the customer service center and spoke to someone. They took my card number and said, yes, my account had $15 on it. Why wasn't it showing up at the store? Well, I had put the money in around the 20th of the month. Borders Bucks expire at the end of each month. (That this is so is, in and of itself, a horrible customer service thing, but let that pass...). Since many people did not know they expire, Borders decided to wait until the first of the next calendar month for my reward to be available. That way, the representative explained, I had a whole 30 days to spend my bucks before they expired unbeknownst to me and there would be fewer people who showed up at the store only to find out that their bucks had expired. Wasn't that nice of them?

Well, no.

For one, I can't imagine the majority of the people don't go to the store (or the web site) soon after they get their bucks. For another, this wouldn't be an issue except for the stuff expiring to begin with. But the real issue is, why not just TELL the customer when the reward is issued? My e-mail specifically said the reward could be redeemed for 30 days after the date of issuance. Silly me, I thought that meant the next 30 days, not some random 30 days after the issuance. Gee, what we meant is that we pick 30 random days without telling you in the year 2015 and they'll be good then. Those are, after all, 30 different days AFTER the date of issuance.

Again, could it be that their hope is to get people in the store who will then buy something because they are there and come back later to use the bucks? I sure think so. Sad thing is, they achieved the exact opposite--due to lousy customer service, my resolve is to never shop at Borders again unless I have to. It's not worth the headache, and why reward a company for treating its customers so shabbily?

Is the Message of Avatar...

...that James Cameron hopes Al Qaeda wins?

I realize that as probably the last person in America to see the film, I may be asking a question that has already been discussed about the film, but I'm seriously confused about the cultural work the film is performing.

Read more here.

Rick Minnich Interview

My write up of my interview with director Rick Minnich is up at CT Movies Blog.

Eric Rohmer (1920-2010)

If funerals, as they say, are for the living and not the dead, obituaries and appreciations (especially in an Internet age) are for the writers not the subjects.

Better writers and more informed film historians will argue about and establish Rohmer's place in the canon of great directors. Less enthusiastic amateur cinephiles may have to dig through the headlines at IMDB to find the news and rack their memories to remember if they've seen one of his films.

I confess when I went to IMDB and saw Rohmer's passing was only the second headline, below the notices of Simon Cowell's departure from American Idol, I was momentarily indignant. But it's always been that way for Rohmer, hasn't it? Amongst the uninitiated, he'll forever be remembered more for being the subject of Pauline Kael's classic slam than for being the auteur of My Night at Maud's, Chloe in the Afternoon, or Perceval. Kael's comment flitted through my mind not long after I heard the news of Rohmer's passing, and I tried to capture and bottle the anger and indignation I felt so that I could remind myself that a critic needs to be right 999 times to atone for the one time he or she is that wrong that snidely.

Such an object lesson still makes Rohmer's films secondary to something else, so I'll hasten to say there is a humility and a simplicity to his films that those weaned on explosions may find boring (I won't prettify the sentiments by using some nicer word), but those who love talk, ideas, and, above all, people, will find rich and savory.

In his chapter on Rohmer in Faith and Spirituality in Masters of World Cinema, John Caruana begins, fittingly, with a quote from Blaise Pascal: "Temporal afflictions conceal the eternal joys to which they lead." It took a long time for me to work my way past the "temporal afflictions" in Rohmer's films and catch a glimpse of the eternal joys to which they lead. But that's a part, too, of why I am so fond of his films. Those glimpses are none too frequent in our lives as well--but they are there. Caruana writes:

"But what appears to be an obstacle to appreciating Rohmer's spirituality is actually an important key to unlocking its mystery. Rohmer's unassuming style powerfully renders its spiritual message. For what is essential about Rohmer's God, like Blaise Pascal's before him, is that he is a hidden God. For Rohmer, God's invisibility speaks to humanity's distance from him, but also to God's respect for human autonomy" (74).

Caruana goes on to suggest that Rohmer emulates his God by withdrawing as much as feasible his authority over his work, giving his viewers unimagined freedoms to exist within his work and to draw their own conclusions about the world he has created.

The respect given to the viewer by Rohmer is something that is so rare in an age of lowest common denominators, of speeches giving hammering home epiphanies and music creating artificial significance. That respect for the viewer is infectious and it permeates the work and creates a space where characters can exist with dignity and humanity in spite of their foibles. If we are lucky, it carries past the film and begins to help us catch a glimpse of how we can give our neighbor freedom and respect. I know Rohmer's films have helped me cultivate the still fragile buds of habit in my own thought life that struggle to first think charitably about my neighbor in order to create a right foundation from which acts of love and compassion can be built.

A few months ago, at the Toronto International Film Festival, I had cause to meditate on a film from Alain Resnais, and I wrote the following:

There is a communal aspect to film going that is present in the culture at large and highly concentrated around major festivals. People talk about films and the way they shape our lives in a way I seldom hear them talk about books anymore. For good or for ill, films matter to people, and as a result the relationship between cinephiles and an auteur is often something quite different from that of their relationship to authors, actors, and other celebrities.

Two years ago, the eighty-seven year old Eric Rohmer sent what could well be his final film to the festival (Romance of Astree and Celadon) and the fact that the much beloved director could not himself make the trip to present the film in no way diminished the joy of his fans at having another film. Life gets mighty precious, Bonnie Raitt sings, when there is less of it to waste.

Alain Resnais is eighty-seven this year, and Les Herbes folles could well be his last film. That he was not able to be in the Scotiabank theater to present the film did little to diminish my pleasure in having two more hours in the dark with an international treasure of whom we are not yet ready (are we ever?) to let go.

I knew before today that I would probably not see another new Eric Rohmer film in this life. I knew this. This news was not unexpected. And yet, I still was not ready to let him go.

Are we ever?

Did Christianity "Cause" The Crash?

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: what the fu..!?! Um, no.

Even longer answer:

Sigh. I had some reward points for filling out polls Online, and without much in the way of prizes I wanted, I accepted a free subscription for one year to The Atlantic. Every now and then I've heard snippets from amongst friends that in an age where press journalism is hit hard that The Atlantic was a more substantial, more thoughtful example of journalism that was more in depth than say USA Today, Time or Newsweek.

Unfortunately the first issue I received did not impress me much. The letters to the editor actually struck me as more interesting and thoughtful than any of the articles, which included some lengthy explication on why Julie and Julia was more than just a "chick flick."

The cover article, by Hannah Rosin, was entitled, "Did Christianity Cause the Crash?" Rosin has just found out, it seems, about the so called "prosperity gospel," and the bulk of the article is actually a series of descriptions of churches or people who sit under the teaching of pastors or advocates of fiscal irresponsibility passing under the guise of faith.

I certainly don't want to jump to the defense of proponents of the prosperity gospel, but by the same token I struggle with the fact that the lead article in a prestige magazine is something which, were it handed in for a grade in my Freshman Composition class, might earn a C+ (clear, well edited writing with an identifiable and consistent thesis, but huge gaps in logic and poor use of examples for support). Maybe this is because my institution is on the "Critical Thinking" warpath, but I don't think so. I mean, surely it is not only in University English departments where things like hasty generalizations and non-sequiturs are viewed as poor argumentation? Or have we officially reached the Fox News age where argumentation doesn't even pretend to be about logos or ethos and is only about pathos? The shock headline may attract readers and if the argument itself leaves people nonplussed, well it sold the advertising space for a month and that's all that matters, right?

Maybe. Though (and now I'm gonna start sounding like Fox News rather than lambasting them, but...) I wonder if the article were dealing with some other religion or social group than Christianity or evangelical Christians if such broad stereotyping and generalizations would not be called out as based on and inflaming prejudices? Think about the headline for a second and then think of the article. Certainly we have a core problem of taking a subset of a larger group (proponents of the prosperity gospel) and identifying them as the larger thing (Christianity), I won't even bother to expound upon the apparently too subtle but important distinction between the generalization the article intentionally makes (prosperity gospel proponents = all Christians) and the even greater, more egregious rhetorical generalization the article unthinkingly promulgates (the actions of some Christians="Christianity" in its true form). Add to that the fact that I would hope it wouldn't take an offended Christian reader or a Ph.D. in Economics (hey, I majored in literature) to take issue with the underlying assumption that the "crash" did not have multiple proximate and remote causes, and I think you begin to the see the foundational problems at the core of this article. Leaving aside the generalizations about Christianity, surely the crash had so many causes that I would think laying the blame for it (or even the lion's share of the blame for it) at the feet of one subsection of (consumer!) society influenced by one way of thinking is, well, facile.

Here's a chain of causal influences for you. The World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by Islamic extremists who wanted to cause terror in the United States. One reason why the Muslim world has had it in for the United States is because of its support of Israel. Israel is composed of Jewish people, many of whom believe, for religious reasons, that they are entitled to land on the West Bank. If I were to then write an article in which I interviewed several Jews who held that belief and gave it a title "Did Judaism Cause 9/11?" I don't know exactly what would happen, but I expect I know one thing that wouldn't happen. I wouldn't get a cover story in The Atlantic.

Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie, 2009)

I wasn't expecting much, and on the whole, it struck me as a generic action flick.

I was wondering though...was I the only one who thought it strange to have a major studio picture whose plot revolved around a faked resurrection in an attempt to gain power over the common people who were easily duped (and thus felt fear) released on Christmas day?

Top Ten Films of 2009

I've posted my annual Top 10 list for favorite films at 1More Film Blog.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Over at 1More Film Blog, I'm trying to celebrate the 12 days of Christmas by going to a movie a day. We'll see if I can sustain that better than Nanowrimo. Anyhow, here is a link to my review of Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.

Twilight: New Moon

Becky Finken reviews the new Twilight film at 1More Film Blog. The review is up.

Nanowrimo 2009

"Now there's something you don't see every day," he cracked, looking at the body of what was presumably the owner of Sensei Mike's Karate Academy with a sword sticking all the way through his chest and piercing the punching bag on the other side.

He was right, but the joke was about as stale as the McDonalds coffee that I was reduced to sipping out of a Styrofoam cup. Being forced to drink fast food coffee would be enough to put me in a foul mood even if I wasn't having to stare down at the body of a homicide victim with my best friend (who usually really isn't that much of an asshole) making feeble stabs at gallows humor to try to hide his discomfort.

[Only 49, 874 more words to go! This novel writing stuff is easy breezy, Chucky Cheesey.]

Christian Fiction

My article on "Christian Fiction" from the Books and Beyond (a Greenwood Encylopedia of Literary Genres) is now available online here.

Bible Films Meme

My friend Carmen at In The Open Space: God & Culture tagged me with a meme that is going around asking people to select their three favorite "Bible Films" and to add one Bible based film they would like to see made.

This was a hard challenge for me because I mostly don't like Bible films, and I'm tempted to start a long discourse on why. But then, I'm always afraid in such instances that doing so turns into a knock on those who act or feel differently, and I don't want to do that either.

I guess I do need to say enough to contextualize my list. I tend to not like Bible films for much the same reason I don't like literary adaptations--good enough is hardly ever perfect, and I end up feeling as though my relationship to the text gets transferred in ways I don't particularly like. Also, I actively resist passive reading or passive viewing where the Bible is involved, meaning I'm usually working against the text.

Okay, so much for my caveats. Here are the three that I would consider my favorites:

The Miracle Maker (Hayes, 2000)
I find that the claymation and animation mix helps create defamiliarization, an essential element of any Bible film for me. Most of the interpretive choices or glosses are fairly well vetted, so the film mostly avoids the kinds of theologically problematic glosses on scenes that take me out of a film when I watch them.

I do tend to dislike the mix of Biblical and apocryphal interpolations (despite two of them being on my list), and I would prefer that an unknown voice Jesus, since any actor's persona carries with it problematic associations with other roles. Generally quick moving, and at times (in the animation) more emotionally suggestive than literal, The Miracle Maker is generally my go to film if I want a film as devotional or contemplative aid, though even this one feels long at 90 minutes sometimes.

The Bible: In The Beginning (Huston, 1966)
If I like The Miracle Maker for being stylized, I like The Bible for its insistent plainness. The most iconic thing about it is Huston's rich, accented voice, and the minimalist interpretations of the early Genesis scenes to help me to think of them as historical depictions of actual people rather than legendary archetypes. Certainly by the time one gets to George C. Scott as Abraham, I feel like I'm watching an actor read his lines rather than a tableau enact the spoken words, but I have a soft spot for the Noah passages. Perhaps it comes from having read of Huston's trials in working with animals and feeling as though there is something just a little metafictive in the way that he, like Noah, takes on a task that is so clearly out of his control.

I've posted a little bit more about Huston at 1More Film Blog, including this quote, which made me love the man, even while I was still on the fence about what I thought of this film: "I try to direct as little as possible. The more one directs, the more there is a tendency to monotony. If one is telling each person what to do, one ends up with a host of little replicas of oneself." Honestly, I don't know how anyone could direct a Bible film any other way.

Intolerance (Griffith, 1916)
D.W. Griffith's film is often viewed as his apology for or defense of Birth of a Nation, but really it's his defense of himself for having made Birth of a Nation. Intersplicing four stories of intolerance through the ages, the film might not be considered a Bible film by some, since only one of the stories is from the Bible. I find that I need something outside the standard depictions of the passion text, however, to keep me from just falling into a familiar sense that I've seen it before. And since some Bible films do feel self-contained to me, I sort of like ones that point outside the cinematic text and address the question of the text's relation to the surrounding world rather than simply being an illustrated text. As a film, Intolerance's use of sets and actual people always instills a sort of awe in me that CGI just doesn't give. There is something epic about the production values that gives the film a sort of weightiness that, while not the end-all-be-all of a Bible film, is, I think, a necessary element.

In terms of Bible films I would like to see made, that's a tough one. I'm tempted to say Carl Theodor Dreyer's long contemplated but never filmed biography of Jesus, but the truth is that I'm happy enough with what Dreyer created. I suppose Hosea might make a good film, as would Jonah, if there were a way to contextualize it quickly enough that the human emotions that are so universal in these texts could be allowed to stand without all the exposition. Rather than pick a film that I want made, can I pick an auteur whose Bible film I would be most interested in screening, whatever subject matter he/she picked from?

Answer: Frederic Back.

TIFF Coverage at Christianity Today Movies

I'm happy to announce I'll be doing some guest blogging for Christianity Today (CT Movies). You can follow my posts at the CT Movies Blog.