Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Film/Movies


by 37 Comments

Super Messiah!

I see a lot of chatter about the new trailer for the forthcoming Superman movie, Man of Steel. As Peter Enns noted on Facebook, “I think this will be the most overtly ‘messianic’ of all the Superman films.” If you watch the trailer I think you’ll agree with this observation, which raises a question that has always fascinated me about the Superman franchise: Superman is a messianic figure, so how does that impact our idea of a messiah? How does this relate to Christian depictions of Jesus? Superman appears human, but he is something superior, and he is from another world. Christianity wrestled with whether or not the idea of Jesus’ divinity meant the same for him or if there was a need to emphasize that he was as human as the rest of us. Is Jesus “like” us merely or is Jesus one of us? How one answers this questions says a lot about their Christology.

Watch the trailer:

About these ads


by 1 Comment

Paul N. Anderson reviews History’s The Bible (Part II)

The Bible Novel[Part one of Anderson's review can be found here.]

Paul Anderson’s second part of his The Bible review is available. In it, he incorporates the reactions from his students as well as his own reflections upon the series. The main consensus was that the film was nice but the Book (i.e., the Bible) will always be dear; interestingly, when I was out and about, I saw that there are The Bible novels—one being an abridged, young-reader version—based on the movie but more closely follow the Book (picture to the right). Anderson well concludes:

Overall, the History Channel’s series on The Bible will have made an important contribution to modern and postmodern culture—informing the biblically illiterate and challenging Bible readers to greater text-based faithfulness. It does not claim to be “history-as-such,” as each episode begins with the disclaimer that it is an “an adaptation of bible stories.” And yet, trusting viewers may fail to distinguish dramatic narration from the fact of literary presentations in the biblical text—displacing the former uncritically with the latter. Then again, such is the challenge of all historical narrative—biblical and otherwise—as later editors and writers seek to preserve reports of what had happened in the past, through the filter of their own understandings and interests, as means of addressing the needs of later audiences. In that sense, the tension between the text and the film might also help us appreciate more fully what the biblical writers themselves were also seeking to do, perhaps helping us appreciate more authentically the grand story of God’s redemptive work in human history as preserved and rendered so powerfully in the Bible.

Read part two of Anderson’s review in its entirety here.


by 5 Comments

Paul N. Anderson reviews History’s The Bible (Part I)

The Bible Miniseries[Part two of Anderson's review can be found here.]

Paul Anderson has posted the first part of his review of History’s The Bible subtitled “Not Infallible, but Somewhat Inspired.” I only got the chance to watch the section from the 10 plagues to the battle between David and Goliath so I found Anderson’s review to be helpful in informing me as to what I have been missing. The review has inspired me to pull a The Bible marathon on the next airing.

You can read Anderson’s review here.


by 8 Comments

42 and active non-violence: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”

If you haven’t seen the trailer for the movie “42″ (about the legendary Jackie Robinson) coming this April you’ll want to watch it:

tt0453562I am excited about this film. I am a huge fan of the game of baseball. Also, I happen to appreciate the study of history. Many movies have attempted to explore the dynamics of race in our nation’s past. Some have done better than others. I think this film has a good chance at addressing the topic with one particular edge: the Black character should remain the hero. In the movie “The Help” I was quite critical of the film because it made one mistake in my opinion. It made the Black characters the supporting cast when it should have been the opposite. I think “42″ will get this right.

If you watch the trailer there is a piece of dialogue beginning at 1:33 that moves me (imagine the whole film). Robinson is talking to Brooklyn Dodgers executive Branch Rickey about the persecution he is facing for being a Black baseball player:

Robinson: “You want a player who doesn’t have the guts to fight back?”

Rickey: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”

Robinson: “Give me a uniform, and give me a number on my back, and I’ll give you the guts.”

Our culture has debating how we should curb violence. As a Christian being an advocate for peace is an important part of my identity. Many Christians I know have succumbed to a dialogue that presents violence as a given. The only argument is who should be allowed to be violent. I hope a film like this speaks to us, reminding us that there is a third way, active non-violence (or messianic, active non-violence for us Christians).


by Leave a comment

007, Spiderman, and redemptive violence.

This morning (yes, I am part of the crowd that includes retirees and families with small children who go to the theater before noon on Saturday) I am going to go watch Skyfall, the new James Bond movie. I am anticipating an energetic thriller of a movie that allows me to escape into a story for a couple of hours (though Josh Larsen’s review “Resurrection and revenge in James Bonds’ Skyfall” has me on the lookout for these themes). There will be violence, there will be sex, there will be a “hero” who functions as part of the myth we tell ourselves in the western world that no matter how often our way of life seems threatened we have the technology, the intelligence, and the force necessary to preserve ourselves.

On the other hand, last night I watched the new Amazing Spiderman (finally) and I quite enjoyed it. I think Andrew Garfield is a really good Spiderman and the supporting cast is better than the previous Spiderman series. I think Spiderman is my favorite superhero. At least he was when I was younger and it was OK to say, “…my favorite superhero.” Is it just me or does Spiderman never kill anyone? I can’t remember a time when Spiderman killed someone in the earlier series and I don’t think he killed anyone in the new film.

Is Spiderman a pacifist? It seems like he refuses to use redemptive violence. Rather, he disables and disarms enemies–sometimes reaching past what the monster they’ve become to try find and save a human inside. Unlike Bond he doesn’t fight “evil” as defined by his nationalistic identity or preservation of his cultural way of life over than of another, but it is more of a Good Samaritan, love your neighbor as yourself, and oh, look, I am a human with the skills of a spider!

Also, I should add, Spiderman seems overly cautious and caring about his female partner–and thought I’m not familiar with the comic book series these days he seems to be a one woman type of man. There is no guarantee that Bond is a one woman at this very moment type of man. It is interesting to me that both of these characters are the “good guy”, yet so different.

I won’t lie, I expect to enjoy Skyfall, but I think I like Spiderman more. If I could be a hero I’d want to be Spiderman. Did I confess that?


by Leave a comment

Derrida (2002)

I watched the documentary (?) Derrida (2002) today. I am not a philosopher, nor do I spend a lot of time reading philosophy, but I find this man to have been a fascinating figure. He is confusing at times; he is enlightening at times. I think that was his aim.

In the film there are several places where you go to appreciate Derrida. At one juncture he lectures his interviewer on the artificial nature of interviews and documentaries. Later in the film he asks how they will choose from all the footage to create a hour long film. His point? Do not confuse the filmed, cut, clipped, and organized with actual events.

For all of us who watch the news this is a helpful reminder. No one reports “just the facts,” but all tell us a story with bias. It is what it is.

At another place he is asked to explain “deconstruction” and he does far better job through speech than through writing (in my opinion). Plain and simple: Do not assume to be natural that which is not natural or do not assume to be natural that which has been dictated by culture, or institutions, or historical norms. This is important to remember when we discuss race, gender, sexuality, nationality, and more. We don’t have to affirm or deny everything Derrida affirmed and denied, but neither must we live life without a critical lens.

The interviewer told Derrida that some have compared his thought to the American sitcom “Seinfeld,” which I have heard Christian thinkers do. He was unfamiliar with the show. He responded that if someone thinks his philosophy is like a sitcom they should stop watching sitcoms and try reading his work to understand it. Touche!

When asked to explore “love” he rebuked his interviewer telling her that she cannot ask about something as vague as “love,” so he request that she ask something more specific. She asks why “love” has matter to so many philosophers. He moves the question to something more specific saying that philosophy asks whether we love “someone” or “some thing.” In other words, do you love your spouse or do you love characteristics about your spouse. Can you love someone intrinsically for who they are? If aspects of who they are change do you continue to love them? Good questions worth asking and far more interested than vague clichés about “love,” something Derrida sought to avoid.

All in all the film is worth watching. It is a documentary, kind of. It is an interview, kind of. It is a film that makes you stop and think on several occasions, definitely!


by Leave a comment

Finding signs of meaning in ‘Jeff, Who Lives at Home.’

Last weekend I rented the one film Redbox offered that looked semi-worth watching that I had not seen already: Jeff, Who Lives at Home. The story focuses on two brothers and their mother throughout the course of a turbulent day. The older brother Pat is played by Ed Helms. The younger brother Jeff is played by Jason Segal. And the mother Sharon is played by Susan Sarandon. As you might imagine the film is a dark comedy mixed with hopefulness.

Jeff (who lives at home) is a thirty year old, unemployed man who smokes too much marijuana. In the opening scene he is watching an infomercial when the phone rings asking for “Kevin.” There is no Kevin, so the man tells him to remember the name. It seems threatening, but Jeff takes it as a sign. Over the course of the film he follows a man whose name “Kevin” appears on his basketball jersey and he finds a candy truck with the name “Kevin” in the company title. Whether or not “Kevin” matters to the story is not relevant to this post. You can watch the film for yourself.

What is relevant is how Jeff seeks “meaning” in the universe. His older brother Pat chides him for his misguided mysticism. While Pat’s marriage seemingly collapses before them (it appears that Pat’s wife is having an affair, so he goes on a mission to find out if this is so) Jeff continues to ask how “Kevin” might lead them to an answer and to purpose.

As someone who is familiar with charismatic Christianity I know a lot of people like Kevin. It is not the universe hiding hints everywhere, but God. A sign here or a sign there might be the key to knowing God’s “will for my life.” Sometimes people are paralyzed by this. They do not act because they do not know if they have God’s approval. Others act, but with doubt and hesitancy.

I won’t deny that I am like this sometimes too. Currently my wife and I prepare for our transition and we have a few decisions to make (mostly made at this point). I have prayed, and asked God for direction, and second guessed myself, and we’ve made choices with which I feel comfortable one day and not so comfortable the next. Sometimes I wish I was a hard-core Calvinist who saw God as a deterministic force in the universe. The idea of “choice” means options and options means something must be denied and denial and acceptance makes one wonder if the right thing was accepted and the right thing denied. That said, I do believe God “orders the steps of a righteous person” though I don’t know that this looks like what we might imagine (e.g. he ordered Jesus’ steps straight to the cross).

When making decisions we want to find signs of meaning in this world. We want to know God has “spoken” somehow. This may be Gideon-like or it may be a semi-superstitious use of the Bible. We want to hear God and we want to know God supports our plans and guides our future.

For Jeff this means seeking to understand why someone called his number and told him to remember the name “Kevin.” It couldn’t have been an accident. It must have been for a reason. But is everything for a reason? Qoheleth seems to say “no” providing an existentialist voice to the biblical choir. Then we have Paul telling us that “all things work together for good for those who loves the Lord and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8.28).” Maybe our answer is like Kevin’s: If you don’t try to find meaning and purpose you won’t. You must seek it.