Elton John Looks in the Mirror and Claims to See . . . Jesus
The Internet is all a-twitter (literally) with Elton John's comment about Jesus. If you have been on Mars the last two days and missed it, here is the gist. In an interview with U.S. magazine, Parade, the 62-year-old musician said, "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East - you're as good as dead."
One is reminded of John Lennon's 1966 statement. "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me." I had just discovered the Beatles a year before this, and now his off-the-cuff statement (if it was off the cuff) threatened to remove my Beatles records from my shelf since my parents were incensed by the comment.
Elton John's statement has raised the ire of many, including both Roman Catholics and fundamentalists. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League had this to say: "More seriously, to call Jesus a homosexual is to label Him a sexual deviant. But what else would we expect from a man who previously said, 'From my point of view, I would ban religion completely.'" Even from gay circles there was a negative assessment of the British singer's comments. "I don't think that comments like this are particularly helpful," Reverend Sharon Ferguson from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement told ABC News.
This is not the first time Elton John has been at the center of religious controversy. His song, "If there's a God in Heaven (What's He Waiting For?)" stirred opposition from conservative Christians in 1976 when it was released on his Blue Moves album. He was married to his gay lover, David Furnish, in London in 2005. So, we ought not to be surprised that the singer would say something like this.
Why would he say something like this at this point in time, knowing that it would gain the ire of many even of his own fans? I do not claim to know his heart, but it may be no coincidence that he makes the comment on the heels of the announcement that his summer tour with Billy Joel will be canceled. Apparently Billy Joel wants to take a year off. I am not an insider on the rock music front, but it may be that this publicity will generate other opportunities.
There have been efforts by liberal scholars to argue that various biblical characters were really gay. Robin Scroggs argued that Jesus might have been gay in a book he wrote in 1983. Others have made the same case for David and Jonathan. On the one hand, such allegations are not even worthy of response, but apparently in the homosexualized world that we live in, some response has to be made. Of course, the Bible teaches that Jesus never had sex and never sinned. Gays, however, generally redefine sin so as not to include gay sex. So, the singer could make such an allegation without feeling that he was disrespecting the Savior. But he ought to realize that others--probably most others--would not have the same response.
Political ploy? Career move? Arrogance? Only God knows John's heart.
I predict that it will make him popular in some circles, but I also believe that it will damage his career overall. Many evangelicals like his music in spite of his lifestyle. I know, because I am one of them. I prefer C & W music, but I am pretty eclectic and I have a half-dozen Elton John albums (really, albums, not CD's) in my collection. I doubt that I will buy anything else from him.
Maybe it's just hard to get old as a performer.
Chad Owen Brand
Friday, February 19, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
HAITI'S DEBT CANCELLATION: JUSTICE OR GRACE?
Haiti's Debt Cancellation: Justice or Grace?
On Friday, February 5, US Treasury Secretary Geithner announced, “Today, we are voicing our support for what Haiti needs and deserves – comprehensive multilateral debt relief.” On Saturday the G7 finance ministers declared their agreement with Geithner--Haiti would not have to pay back its debt. In light of the terrible loss and the indescribable pain taking place in that Caribbean nation, such an act is understandable and appropriate. But is it "just"?
Sojourners believes that this move constitutes "a matter of justice," and the only "just" approach to Haiti's billion dollar debt. Hayley Hathaway, in an article published online February 8, made that very case. Here is the heart of her case.
"This is also a win for debt campaigners and people of faith and conscience around the world. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. Treasury Secretary never would have uttered what Geithner said on Friday. It would have been considered crazy to cancel Haiti’s debts to help it recover. Debt was sacred; countries had to pay their debts before anything else — before clean water, education, or health. Yet thanks to a growing call from people of faith around the world who believed in scripture’s vision of debt cancellation and restoration of right relations between nations, the Jubilee movement was born."
http://blog.sojo.net/2010/02/08/victory-for-haiti-debt-cancellation/
All of this sounds very fine and it tugs at our heart strings, especially in light of the terrible suffering we see chronicled on television screens every night. And I mean that! I am not being sarcastic. But there are a couple of issues that arise from Ms. Hathaway's article that give me pause.
First, she appeals to the Jubilee Law of Leviticus 25:8-12 in making her case. The Jubilee Movement, a movement founded in 2000 for the purpose of "seeking to cancel the
debts of impoverished countries" (from their website), has argued that the Jubilee of the OT entails that poor countries ought not to have to pay back their loans. I argue that the Jubilee law does not mean that at all. The problem here is hermeneutical. The Jubilee law was instituted so that families would not permanently lose their land because of poverty. During the Jubilee year all lands that had been lost as a result of collateral for loans had to be returned to the families from which they had been taken. Land in Israel was a zero-sum game. Once lost, it would likely never be returned. That family would be cursed to perpetual poverty. Hence the Jubilee year. Every family could recover from its losses if it could just be patient. But it was a matter of land. The Jubilee reminded that Israelites that everything came from the hand of the Lord, and that all wealth had to be held with a loose grip.
That is not the same situation with reference to the debt of poor countries. They have borrowed money from lending institutions and from countries that have capital to lend to extricate themselves from poverty, to build infrastructures and businesses to help bring themselves out of debt. And there has been great success in many places in the world, especially among the "Asian Tigers" in doing just that, though hardship still exists in many places throughout the world. But that fact is also worthy of exploration. With all the capital out there, why have many countries, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, had such a difficult time pulling themselves up by the bootstraps? The answer to that is vast, but among answers would be: political corruption in nations receiving help so that only the few in power receive the benefice (can you say, "Haiti"?), lack of incentive to do work on the part of many when handouts are coming their way, and legal and environmental restrictions placed on them by the lending nations. Malaria kills more Africans every year than AIDS, and that malaria could be destroyed in a few years by the application of DDT, but Rachel Carson's famous book (and other arguments by environmentalists) has caused Western nations to refuse to apply DDT. If malaria were wiped out, many African nations would have a real "leg up" to finding their way to productivity. But leftists do not want that.
In my opinion many leftist intellectuals are the modern incarnation of plantation owners. They decry the loss of American manufacturing jobs to third world countries, even though those losses have dramatically increased the productivity of those nations. At the same time they issue their calls to give donations of cash, goods, and debt forgiveness to those very countries. They want governments to be charitable to poor countries, but they do not want them to find their own productivity in a global economy.
The second issue that bothers me about Hathaway's article is her use of the word "justice." That is the catch-word for leftists on the global poverty issue. It is "just" to forgive their debts. It is "just" to transfer Western wealth to them by transfer payments of one kind or another. If Copenhagen is instituted, that is exactly what will happen. Governments will levy taxes against productive Westerners and transfer that money to the Third World countries, where, again, it can be stolen by corrupt politicians and just given to people without any expectations that such funds will ever eventually enable them to stand on their own two feet. Is that "justice"? Not in my opinion. It might be "grace" at some level (though likely a misbegotten and mishandled version of grace), but it is not "justice." The left is currently trying co-opt that word for their own purposes, but thinking Americans will not let them do that. Justice and generosity are not the same thing.
What apparently is being forgotten here is that those loans given to third world countries came from somebody's pocket. They came from me, and from you, and from hard-working auto workers in Oslo, and from farmers in Spain, and from waitresses in Toronto--"eh?" They came from these people because they came from taxes levied by Western nations and from banks where people like this have their savings accounts and 401K's. But people like Hathaway would have you think that these monies came from evil bankers and heads of corporations. Therefore, the loans just have to be "forgiven"and then evil will pass out of this world like the smoke from fireworks rises up and passes out of sight. What is "just" about that? It is not that easy, especially when those same poor nations will need other funds again and not very long from now. What then?
This is a complex issue. I am not trying to mitigate that. And I do believe in generosity. I am a Christian--I believe very much in generosity. But generosity does not consist in giving away someone else's money. What should we do? We should do Jubilee--real Jubilee--and in most cases we already have. Western colonial powers decolonialized in the 1940's through the 1970's. The land was given back to the people. That really was Jubilee. Some debt should be written off. In other cases, interest payments ought to be reduced. But what we really need is for Western governments to stop taxing their people in "unjust" ways, and allow people of faith who are skilled in building businesses and in making money to go to these places and help them build businesses that will enable them to compete in a global market--yes even compete with American businesses.
Here's my point: don't let leftist Christian organizations try to manipulate you into believing that the problems of the world lie with the West. The problems of the world are a result of sin--Western sin, Southern sin, and all kinds of sin. The solution is not another government program--whether a Democratic one or a Republican one. The solution, insofar as there is any solution in this age, lies in the application of atonement to every situation--even the problem of global poverty.
I pray for Haiti every day. I also pray that both grace and justice will prevail so that the earth shall be filled with His knowledge and glory as water that covers the sea.
Chad Owen Brand
On Friday, February 5, US Treasury Secretary Geithner announced, “Today, we are voicing our support for what Haiti needs and deserves – comprehensive multilateral debt relief.” On Saturday the G7 finance ministers declared their agreement with Geithner--Haiti would not have to pay back its debt. In light of the terrible loss and the indescribable pain taking place in that Caribbean nation, such an act is understandable and appropriate. But is it "just"?
Sojourners believes that this move constitutes "a matter of justice," and the only "just" approach to Haiti's billion dollar debt. Hayley Hathaway, in an article published online February 8, made that very case. Here is the heart of her case.
"This is also a win for debt campaigners and people of faith and conscience around the world. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. Treasury Secretary never would have uttered what Geithner said on Friday. It would have been considered crazy to cancel Haiti’s debts to help it recover. Debt was sacred; countries had to pay their debts before anything else — before clean water, education, or health. Yet thanks to a growing call from people of faith around the world who believed in scripture’s vision of debt cancellation and restoration of right relations between nations, the Jubilee movement was born."
http://blog.sojo.net/2010/02/08/victory-for-haiti-debt-cancellation/
All of this sounds very fine and it tugs at our heart strings, especially in light of the terrible suffering we see chronicled on television screens every night. And I mean that! I am not being sarcastic. But there are a couple of issues that arise from Ms. Hathaway's article that give me pause.
First, she appeals to the Jubilee Law of Leviticus 25:8-12 in making her case. The Jubilee Movement, a movement founded in 2000 for the purpose of "seeking to cancel the
debts of impoverished countries" (from their website), has argued that the Jubilee of the OT entails that poor countries ought not to have to pay back their loans. I argue that the Jubilee law does not mean that at all. The problem here is hermeneutical. The Jubilee law was instituted so that families would not permanently lose their land because of poverty. During the Jubilee year all lands that had been lost as a result of collateral for loans had to be returned to the families from which they had been taken. Land in Israel was a zero-sum game. Once lost, it would likely never be returned. That family would be cursed to perpetual poverty. Hence the Jubilee year. Every family could recover from its losses if it could just be patient. But it was a matter of land. The Jubilee reminded that Israelites that everything came from the hand of the Lord, and that all wealth had to be held with a loose grip.
That is not the same situation with reference to the debt of poor countries. They have borrowed money from lending institutions and from countries that have capital to lend to extricate themselves from poverty, to build infrastructures and businesses to help bring themselves out of debt. And there has been great success in many places in the world, especially among the "Asian Tigers" in doing just that, though hardship still exists in many places throughout the world. But that fact is also worthy of exploration. With all the capital out there, why have many countries, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, had such a difficult time pulling themselves up by the bootstraps? The answer to that is vast, but among answers would be: political corruption in nations receiving help so that only the few in power receive the benefice (can you say, "Haiti"?), lack of incentive to do work on the part of many when handouts are coming their way, and legal and environmental restrictions placed on them by the lending nations. Malaria kills more Africans every year than AIDS, and that malaria could be destroyed in a few years by the application of DDT, but Rachel Carson's famous book (and other arguments by environmentalists) has caused Western nations to refuse to apply DDT. If malaria were wiped out, many African nations would have a real "leg up" to finding their way to productivity. But leftists do not want that.
In my opinion many leftist intellectuals are the modern incarnation of plantation owners. They decry the loss of American manufacturing jobs to third world countries, even though those losses have dramatically increased the productivity of those nations. At the same time they issue their calls to give donations of cash, goods, and debt forgiveness to those very countries. They want governments to be charitable to poor countries, but they do not want them to find their own productivity in a global economy.
The second issue that bothers me about Hathaway's article is her use of the word "justice." That is the catch-word for leftists on the global poverty issue. It is "just" to forgive their debts. It is "just" to transfer Western wealth to them by transfer payments of one kind or another. If Copenhagen is instituted, that is exactly what will happen. Governments will levy taxes against productive Westerners and transfer that money to the Third World countries, where, again, it can be stolen by corrupt politicians and just given to people without any expectations that such funds will ever eventually enable them to stand on their own two feet. Is that "justice"? Not in my opinion. It might be "grace" at some level (though likely a misbegotten and mishandled version of grace), but it is not "justice." The left is currently trying co-opt that word for their own purposes, but thinking Americans will not let them do that. Justice and generosity are not the same thing.
What apparently is being forgotten here is that those loans given to third world countries came from somebody's pocket. They came from me, and from you, and from hard-working auto workers in Oslo, and from farmers in Spain, and from waitresses in Toronto--"eh?" They came from these people because they came from taxes levied by Western nations and from banks where people like this have their savings accounts and 401K's. But people like Hathaway would have you think that these monies came from evil bankers and heads of corporations. Therefore, the loans just have to be "forgiven"and then evil will pass out of this world like the smoke from fireworks rises up and passes out of sight. What is "just" about that? It is not that easy, especially when those same poor nations will need other funds again and not very long from now. What then?
This is a complex issue. I am not trying to mitigate that. And I do believe in generosity. I am a Christian--I believe very much in generosity. But generosity does not consist in giving away someone else's money. What should we do? We should do Jubilee--real Jubilee--and in most cases we already have. Western colonial powers decolonialized in the 1940's through the 1970's. The land was given back to the people. That really was Jubilee. Some debt should be written off. In other cases, interest payments ought to be reduced. But what we really need is for Western governments to stop taxing their people in "unjust" ways, and allow people of faith who are skilled in building businesses and in making money to go to these places and help them build businesses that will enable them to compete in a global market--yes even compete with American businesses.
Here's my point: don't let leftist Christian organizations try to manipulate you into believing that the problems of the world lie with the West. The problems of the world are a result of sin--Western sin, Southern sin, and all kinds of sin. The solution is not another government program--whether a Democratic one or a Republican one. The solution, insofar as there is any solution in this age, lies in the application of atonement to every situation--even the problem of global poverty.
I pray for Haiti every day. I also pray that both grace and justice will prevail so that the earth shall be filled with His knowledge and glory as water that covers the sea.
Chad Owen Brand
YOUNG OBAMA AND MARXISM
Young Obama and Marxism
In the video posted below there is a fascinating interview with John Drew, who knew Barack Obama when they were poly sci students together at Occidental College. It is an intriguing interview.
Chad Owen Brand
In the video posted below there is a fascinating interview with John Drew, who knew Barack Obama when they were poly sci students together at Occidental College. It is an intriguing interview.
Chad Owen Brand
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
SCOTT BROWN'S VICTORY
What Brown Can Do For You
I do not know that I have anything unique or profound to say about Scott Brown's victory as a political issue. But as many of you know, I am feverishly trying to finish edits on a book that deals with the interface of Christianity, America, and economic issues. So, on that basis, and on basis of my own research into these things, here is my read.
Americans are, and have always been, a compassionate people, a fair people, and a sober people when it comes to matters economic. Those commitments have led Americans sometimes to take odd stands on matters politic. So, when the Industrial Revolution resulted in many moving to the cities, cities that were then over-crowded with under-employed and hungry people, some Americans embraced socialism, or at least some mild version of it. But the numbers who accepted hard-core Marxism were always very small in comparison. A greater number embraced the Social Gospel (which was not Marxist), and still even larger numbers embraced various forms of sacrificial compassion. Americans have not been, by and large, extremists on these issues. So, in recent months, as they have perceived that the federal government was moving in the direction of greater forced redistribution, their instinct to compassion, which is still very much there, has raised a red flag out of fear that "compassion" can sometimes be used by politicians as a stalking horse for other political ideals.
Americans are a fair people. This has led significant numbers in the distant past to embrace unionism. But, being fair, they also began to recognize when unions themselves began to use strong-arm tactics and to ask for special benefits and exemptions. In the recent debates over health care, the Democrats in Congress indicated a willingness to exempt unions from some of the restrictions on health care that everyone else would bear--everyone else except Congress (and the unions). Somehow, THAT does not seem fair! If politicians cross that fairness line, they are in deep trouble in America.
Americans are a sober people when it comes to economics. Not everyone, of course, but most Americans know what it is like to keep a family budget. It was a great American who said, "A penny saved is a penny earned." They understand pinching pennies so that you can later be able to splurge on a family vacation or buy a nicer car. But they know that you have to pinch pennies to get there. The last year has been nothing but one huge spending spree by the federal government, with cap and trade, health care reform, and green concerns running rampant over everything. We are spending like the drunk at the bar who pulls out his American Express Card and says, "Give everyone whatever they want." Some time later, when the hangover wears off, somebody has to reconcile the bill, and normal people can't rob a bank, print money on their computer, or just blow it off. At some point, somebody was going to walk to the bartender and say, "That's enough." This time, it was the voters in Mass who did that.
Do you know who won this election? The American people. I don't care if it was a Republican or a Democrat, quite frankly. In the last administration, drunken spending was too often the case. Why can't we return to the promises and the platform of 1994? When the government shrinks and spends less and is more concerned about balancing budgets than breaking them, we all win. I have six grandchildren. The burden that is going to be placed on them is already immense. Maybe, just maybe, because of what happened in, of all places, Massachusetts, that burden will be barely bearable.
Chad Owen Brand
I do not know that I have anything unique or profound to say about Scott Brown's victory as a political issue. But as many of you know, I am feverishly trying to finish edits on a book that deals with the interface of Christianity, America, and economic issues. So, on that basis, and on basis of my own research into these things, here is my read.
Americans are, and have always been, a compassionate people, a fair people, and a sober people when it comes to matters economic. Those commitments have led Americans sometimes to take odd stands on matters politic. So, when the Industrial Revolution resulted in many moving to the cities, cities that were then over-crowded with under-employed and hungry people, some Americans embraced socialism, or at least some mild version of it. But the numbers who accepted hard-core Marxism were always very small in comparison. A greater number embraced the Social Gospel (which was not Marxist), and still even larger numbers embraced various forms of sacrificial compassion. Americans have not been, by and large, extremists on these issues. So, in recent months, as they have perceived that the federal government was moving in the direction of greater forced redistribution, their instinct to compassion, which is still very much there, has raised a red flag out of fear that "compassion" can sometimes be used by politicians as a stalking horse for other political ideals.
Americans are a fair people. This has led significant numbers in the distant past to embrace unionism. But, being fair, they also began to recognize when unions themselves began to use strong-arm tactics and to ask for special benefits and exemptions. In the recent debates over health care, the Democrats in Congress indicated a willingness to exempt unions from some of the restrictions on health care that everyone else would bear--everyone else except Congress (and the unions). Somehow, THAT does not seem fair! If politicians cross that fairness line, they are in deep trouble in America.
Americans are a sober people when it comes to economics. Not everyone, of course, but most Americans know what it is like to keep a family budget. It was a great American who said, "A penny saved is a penny earned." They understand pinching pennies so that you can later be able to splurge on a family vacation or buy a nicer car. But they know that you have to pinch pennies to get there. The last year has been nothing but one huge spending spree by the federal government, with cap and trade, health care reform, and green concerns running rampant over everything. We are spending like the drunk at the bar who pulls out his American Express Card and says, "Give everyone whatever they want." Some time later, when the hangover wears off, somebody has to reconcile the bill, and normal people can't rob a bank, print money on their computer, or just blow it off. At some point, somebody was going to walk to the bartender and say, "That's enough." This time, it was the voters in Mass who did that.
Do you know who won this election? The American people. I don't care if it was a Republican or a Democrat, quite frankly. In the last administration, drunken spending was too often the case. Why can't we return to the promises and the platform of 1994? When the government shrinks and spends less and is more concerned about balancing budgets than breaking them, we all win. I have six grandchildren. The burden that is going to be placed on them is already immense. Maybe, just maybe, because of what happened in, of all places, Massachusetts, that burden will be barely bearable.
Chad Owen Brand
Sunday, January 3, 2010
INTERLUDE ON SHERLOCK HOLMES
INTERLUDE BLOG ON SHERLOCK HOLMES
I know I have been promising to finish the blog on American Evangelicalism and the Economy, and I will have a second installment up tonight or tomorrow, but this has been an unusually active weekend for Tina and me on the movie theater front, and the second film we saw was Sherlock Holmes. I want to share a few thoughts on that.
Someone said about Augustine that he was like a guy who had spent too much time reading and rereading too few books. (That is not my comment on Augustine, by the way.) One might have made a similar comment about my reading practices when I was a teenager. Though I did read hundreds of books from age 13 to 18 (actually, probably between 1,200-1,500 altogether in those five years--my dad was always complaining that I read too much), I was also guilty of reading some books over and over again. Among my favorites were Tolkien's four volumes (which I read four or five times in that period, and I have now read 25 times), Asimov's Foundation Trilogy (which I think I read three times in those five years), Cooper's The Pathfinder ( a couple of times), Zane Grey's Riders of the Purple Sage (three or four times), and Arthur Conan Doyle's The Complete Sherlock Holmes (three or four times at that time and several times since). There were several other science fiction books that I read more than once, but the books above were the biggest impact on me during those mid-teen years. I also read the Bible through several times during my years 17-18.
When you read the same texts over and over again, you create your own mental image of what that world is like, how the subjects speak, how to pronounce the names (especially a challenge with Tolkien), and the actual look of the location of the events (the old west) or even of the building where these events occurred (i.e., 221 B Baker Street). So, when one of these stories is finally presented in film, you can have a tendency to hate the film because it gives a different mental image of how that "world" looks than the one you have envisaged. That was a barrier to me when the Lord of the Rings films appeared a few years ago, though I was pleasantly surprised at how much of it was similar to my own imagined understanding, though I did not like the departures from the script (Tolkien's) that happened repeatedly in those films.
With Sherlock Holmes and the new film starring Robert Downey, Jr. the situation was different. There have been previous attempts to capture Holmes, dating back to "The Hound of the Baskervilles," in 1939 (what a magic year for film), starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson--still one of my favorite films. There have been several other, not very notable, attempts in recent decades to capture the Holmes essence. For me, the only one who really "got" Holmes was Rathbone. Even now, when I read "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches," or "Silver Blaze," for instance, I can see in my mind's eye Basil Rathbone, curved pipe held in right hand, deep in thought in his big shabby chair there in London. He and Bruce collaborated on fourteen SH films in fourteen years.
I expected to be disappointed by Downey, Jr. I have never liked him very much as an actor. I am not even sure I know why. I just thought him to be unremarkable. (I have not see Iron Man yet, though I am planning to very soon.) I was surprised. I really liked him as Holmes. Let me go through the downs first and then the ups.
The story plays fast and loose with the person of Holmes created by Conan Doyle. Though he fancied himself something of a boxer, he is not an "Extreme Fighter" in Conan Doyle's novellas and short stories. But he is here. Several times in the film he is engaged in serious fisticuffs that would have made Steven Seagall or Mel Gibson proud. At first the Victorian hackles on my neck rose and I wanted to say to my wife, "Let's get out of here--this is not Holmes." But I didn't, and I will tell you why in a minute. Then there is Irene Adler. She figures heavily into the film, and figures as someone with whom Holmes had apparently had a liason in a hotel. Hmm, Adler is in the stories, but she is a character in only one of the short stories ("A Scandal in Bohemia"), and there is absolutely no hint of anything romantic between Holmes and Adler. Doyle's portrait of Holmes is of a rather stuffy Victorian bachelor when it comes to anything resembling romance. He admired Adler, but only her mind. I think that even if she had remained in London and been featured in other stories, that their relationship would have been, specifically, Platonic. Plato believed the philosopher-kings (or queens!) would have no need for or interest in romance and marriage, hence the term, "Platonic relationship." If anything, Holmes would have qualified for philosopher-king in a different political world.
These are the two most egregious departures from the "historical Holmes" (if you can have a "historical" figure who was fictional). So, what of it? My response? No Big Deal! New looks at older figures almost always have to go through some kind of metamorphosis. That is especially true if you want to make any money on the art. I don't think that most twenty-first century Americans would be interested in a film that recaptures the essence of Holmes himself. We live in a time when detectives get in fist fights--all the time. We live in a time when crime-fighters have a woman on their arm--a beautiful woman. If anyone is going to sell Sherlock Holmes at the box-office today, it would have to be something like this new Holmes. I did not say that I like it; I merely acknowledged that this is the nature of the case. So, no big deal! I like the movie, and I am about as fussy a curmudgeon as you will find on the Holmes image.
OK. Now to the positive. I really liked the film, and I really, really liked Robert Downey, Jr. He is better as a middle-aged Londoner than as anything else I have ever seen him play. He really has captured the essence of Holmes more than anyone, with perhaps the exception of Rathbone. And that is good, since it appears there will be a sequel. He captures the heart of the Holmes, who sometimes uses drugs when he does not have a case to work on, whose habits are less than tidy (the film may have overplayed this element), but who strikes to the heart of any situation with his incredible attention to detail and his decisive intellect. Downey, Jr. nailed that! He also captures Holmes's wit. Sherlock Holmes was often a funny guy! At least, he appreciated humor. He was not slapstick, but he was humorous in a very British way. This new Holmes does that even better than Rathbone did.
Other strengths? Dr. Watson! I have to say that I love Nigel Bruce the actor, but I always thought that he only portrayed one side of the Dr. Watson in the stories--as the foil for Holmes's intellect. I felt he was too bumbling and dim-witted. Watson in the stories usually does not grasp the situation as Holmes does, but he had been a doctor in the British Army in Afghanistan, and he is sharper than the image depicted by Nigel Bruce. But Jude Law gets it! He is great. Also, the sets, the photography, the directing were all magical.
I want to see this one again. With all the caveats I throw in to the mix above, it is still one of the best nights at the theater we've had in a while.
Chad Owen Brand
I know I have been promising to finish the blog on American Evangelicalism and the Economy, and I will have a second installment up tonight or tomorrow, but this has been an unusually active weekend for Tina and me on the movie theater front, and the second film we saw was Sherlock Holmes. I want to share a few thoughts on that.
Someone said about Augustine that he was like a guy who had spent too much time reading and rereading too few books. (That is not my comment on Augustine, by the way.) One might have made a similar comment about my reading practices when I was a teenager. Though I did read hundreds of books from age 13 to 18 (actually, probably between 1,200-1,500 altogether in those five years--my dad was always complaining that I read too much), I was also guilty of reading some books over and over again. Among my favorites were Tolkien's four volumes (which I read four or five times in that period, and I have now read 25 times), Asimov's Foundation Trilogy (which I think I read three times in those five years), Cooper's The Pathfinder ( a couple of times), Zane Grey's Riders of the Purple Sage (three or four times), and Arthur Conan Doyle's The Complete Sherlock Holmes (three or four times at that time and several times since). There were several other science fiction books that I read more than once, but the books above were the biggest impact on me during those mid-teen years. I also read the Bible through several times during my years 17-18.
When you read the same texts over and over again, you create your own mental image of what that world is like, how the subjects speak, how to pronounce the names (especially a challenge with Tolkien), and the actual look of the location of the events (the old west) or even of the building where these events occurred (i.e., 221 B Baker Street). So, when one of these stories is finally presented in film, you can have a tendency to hate the film because it gives a different mental image of how that "world" looks than the one you have envisaged. That was a barrier to me when the Lord of the Rings films appeared a few years ago, though I was pleasantly surprised at how much of it was similar to my own imagined understanding, though I did not like the departures from the script (Tolkien's) that happened repeatedly in those films.
With Sherlock Holmes and the new film starring Robert Downey, Jr. the situation was different. There have been previous attempts to capture Holmes, dating back to "The Hound of the Baskervilles," in 1939 (what a magic year for film), starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson--still one of my favorite films. There have been several other, not very notable, attempts in recent decades to capture the Holmes essence. For me, the only one who really "got" Holmes was Rathbone. Even now, when I read "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches," or "Silver Blaze," for instance, I can see in my mind's eye Basil Rathbone, curved pipe held in right hand, deep in thought in his big shabby chair there in London. He and Bruce collaborated on fourteen SH films in fourteen years.
I expected to be disappointed by Downey, Jr. I have never liked him very much as an actor. I am not even sure I know why. I just thought him to be unremarkable. (I have not see Iron Man yet, though I am planning to very soon.) I was surprised. I really liked him as Holmes. Let me go through the downs first and then the ups.
The story plays fast and loose with the person of Holmes created by Conan Doyle. Though he fancied himself something of a boxer, he is not an "Extreme Fighter" in Conan Doyle's novellas and short stories. But he is here. Several times in the film he is engaged in serious fisticuffs that would have made Steven Seagall or Mel Gibson proud. At first the Victorian hackles on my neck rose and I wanted to say to my wife, "Let's get out of here--this is not Holmes." But I didn't, and I will tell you why in a minute. Then there is Irene Adler. She figures heavily into the film, and figures as someone with whom Holmes had apparently had a liason in a hotel. Hmm, Adler is in the stories, but she is a character in only one of the short stories ("A Scandal in Bohemia"), and there is absolutely no hint of anything romantic between Holmes and Adler. Doyle's portrait of Holmes is of a rather stuffy Victorian bachelor when it comes to anything resembling romance. He admired Adler, but only her mind. I think that even if she had remained in London and been featured in other stories, that their relationship would have been, specifically, Platonic. Plato believed the philosopher-kings (or queens!) would have no need for or interest in romance and marriage, hence the term, "Platonic relationship." If anything, Holmes would have qualified for philosopher-king in a different political world.
These are the two most egregious departures from the "historical Holmes" (if you can have a "historical" figure who was fictional). So, what of it? My response? No Big Deal! New looks at older figures almost always have to go through some kind of metamorphosis. That is especially true if you want to make any money on the art. I don't think that most twenty-first century Americans would be interested in a film that recaptures the essence of Holmes himself. We live in a time when detectives get in fist fights--all the time. We live in a time when crime-fighters have a woman on their arm--a beautiful woman. If anyone is going to sell Sherlock Holmes at the box-office today, it would have to be something like this new Holmes. I did not say that I like it; I merely acknowledged that this is the nature of the case. So, no big deal! I like the movie, and I am about as fussy a curmudgeon as you will find on the Holmes image.
OK. Now to the positive. I really liked the film, and I really, really liked Robert Downey, Jr. He is better as a middle-aged Londoner than as anything else I have ever seen him play. He really has captured the essence of Holmes more than anyone, with perhaps the exception of Rathbone. And that is good, since it appears there will be a sequel. He captures the heart of the Holmes, who sometimes uses drugs when he does not have a case to work on, whose habits are less than tidy (the film may have overplayed this element), but who strikes to the heart of any situation with his incredible attention to detail and his decisive intellect. Downey, Jr. nailed that! He also captures Holmes's wit. Sherlock Holmes was often a funny guy! At least, he appreciated humor. He was not slapstick, but he was humorous in a very British way. This new Holmes does that even better than Rathbone did.
Other strengths? Dr. Watson! I have to say that I love Nigel Bruce the actor, but I always thought that he only portrayed one side of the Dr. Watson in the stories--as the foil for Holmes's intellect. I felt he was too bumbling and dim-witted. Watson in the stories usually does not grasp the situation as Holmes does, but he had been a doctor in the British Army in Afghanistan, and he is sharper than the image depicted by Nigel Bruce. But Jude Law gets it! He is great. Also, the sets, the photography, the directing were all magical.
I want to see this one again. With all the caveats I throw in to the mix above, it is still one of the best nights at the theater we've had in a while.
Chad Owen Brand
Saturday, January 2, 2010
INTERLUDE BLOG ON AVATAR
AVATAR
This is an interlude in my series on "Economics in the Church since Smith," but it is timely and so I decided to break up my series to offer my comments on the film, Avatar. I don't have a lot to say that others have not said, but maybe one or two new comments.
First, let me say that I enjoyed the film very much. It was entertaining, it was a generally good story, a little predictable, perhaps, and even more so for those who have followed Cameron over the years (and who has not?). Most of the characters were compelling, though not all of them, and the film kept me interested the whole way through. So, I enjoyed the film, and I feel the need to say that first, because next I am going to offer some criticism.
The movie was clearly political, far more political than Cameron's earlier films. Not only is that clear from the film itself, but Cameron himself has said so on more than one occasion. It is anti-human, or at least, anti-most humans. The little bit at the end that says, in effect, the Navi decided to allow a few aliens to remain on their planet is a punctuation to that. But the film is filled with anti-most-humans sentiment throughout. Of course, what it is against is about as interesting and surprising as the fact that the Canadian-born producer will make money on this venture. It is anti-military, anti-non-green, anti-American (at least Bush and Reagan's America), and anti-Custer.
And I have to say, that is fine with me. Film makers have the freedom to promote whatever agenda they might have in their films, and we, the movie-going public, can buy it or not--literally or figuratively. The problem with the film for me was that the people Cameron likes are portrayed in a sensitive, sympathetic, and realistic manner, but the ones he does not like in the film are, generally, not portrayed in this manner. Colonel Quaritch is the best example. Cameron clearly wants us to hate him, and we do. All of us hate him. But that is just the problem. No one is that monochromatic. I lined up and waited for two hours the night Star Wars debuted. We hated Darth Vader, but we sensed that there was another part of his story that we did not yet know about. So, we could hate him, but in a way kind of "bracket" that hate. No one can bracket their hate toward the Colonel. He's just a bad guy. The same is true, but to a lesser degree of Parker Selfridge, the "head" of the project. Sully, Neytiri, and Dr. Grace, on the other hand, are complex individuals with mixed emotions, conflicting commitments, and polychromatic personalities. I think Cameron could have done a better job depicting the Colonel and Parker. But maybe he could not bring himself to believe that such persons really are more subtle than he thinks they are. Maybe Cameron should live in the real world for awhile and have lunch with some real military people and even play cards with a few Republicans.
Some have noted that this film is similar to Dances with Wolves. I see the similarity, but I don't care about that. If someone came up with a completely new genre it would probably be a bad film. Someone once said there are only 17 Country and Western songs out there, and that the really creative person is the one who finds a way to repeat one of those songs in a new and fresh way. I agree with that.
Oh, and by the way, the ending leaves everything wide open for a sequel. What? A sequel to a James Cameron film? No one would ever expect that!
I liked the film. I will probably watch it again. But I am not going to drink the KoolAid.
Chad Owen Brand
This is an interlude in my series on "Economics in the Church since Smith," but it is timely and so I decided to break up my series to offer my comments on the film, Avatar. I don't have a lot to say that others have not said, but maybe one or two new comments.
First, let me say that I enjoyed the film very much. It was entertaining, it was a generally good story, a little predictable, perhaps, and even more so for those who have followed Cameron over the years (and who has not?). Most of the characters were compelling, though not all of them, and the film kept me interested the whole way through. So, I enjoyed the film, and I feel the need to say that first, because next I am going to offer some criticism.
The movie was clearly political, far more political than Cameron's earlier films. Not only is that clear from the film itself, but Cameron himself has said so on more than one occasion. It is anti-human, or at least, anti-most humans. The little bit at the end that says, in effect, the Navi decided to allow a few aliens to remain on their planet is a punctuation to that. But the film is filled with anti-most-humans sentiment throughout. Of course, what it is against is about as interesting and surprising as the fact that the Canadian-born producer will make money on this venture. It is anti-military, anti-non-green, anti-American (at least Bush and Reagan's America), and anti-Custer.
And I have to say, that is fine with me. Film makers have the freedom to promote whatever agenda they might have in their films, and we, the movie-going public, can buy it or not--literally or figuratively. The problem with the film for me was that the people Cameron likes are portrayed in a sensitive, sympathetic, and realistic manner, but the ones he does not like in the film are, generally, not portrayed in this manner. Colonel Quaritch is the best example. Cameron clearly wants us to hate him, and we do. All of us hate him. But that is just the problem. No one is that monochromatic. I lined up and waited for two hours the night Star Wars debuted. We hated Darth Vader, but we sensed that there was another part of his story that we did not yet know about. So, we could hate him, but in a way kind of "bracket" that hate. No one can bracket their hate toward the Colonel. He's just a bad guy. The same is true, but to a lesser degree of Parker Selfridge, the "head" of the project. Sully, Neytiri, and Dr. Grace, on the other hand, are complex individuals with mixed emotions, conflicting commitments, and polychromatic personalities. I think Cameron could have done a better job depicting the Colonel and Parker. But maybe he could not bring himself to believe that such persons really are more subtle than he thinks they are. Maybe Cameron should live in the real world for awhile and have lunch with some real military people and even play cards with a few Republicans.
Some have noted that this film is similar to Dances with Wolves. I see the similarity, but I don't care about that. If someone came up with a completely new genre it would probably be a bad film. Someone once said there are only 17 Country and Western songs out there, and that the really creative person is the one who finds a way to repeat one of those songs in a new and fresh way. I agree with that.
Oh, and by the way, the ending leaves everything wide open for a sequel. What? A sequel to a James Cameron film? No one would ever expect that!
I liked the film. I will probably watch it again. But I am not going to drink the KoolAid.
Chad Owen Brand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
