Andrew
Andrew Wells: 1973-2006
11/05/2006 00:25 Filed in:
Personal
Published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on 11/4/2006.
Andrew Wells was a frequent contributor to This Lamp and my very good friend.
|
Updates for Reformation Day, 2006
10/31/2006 10:15 Filed in:
Miscellaneous
Please continue to pray for Andrew
Wells. Prayers have certainly helped him because everything we were
originally praying against has now passed. However, after very
positive results last Thursday where he was awake and talking, and
off the ventilator, he is now back in ICU. Andrew has been
diagnosed with obliterative bronchiolitis as a complication of the
graft vs. host disease that was in his lungs. He is back on the
vent and under medical sedation. His condition is very severe and
he needs your prayers. Andrew's wife, Leila, is posting updates on
his blog when she's able at the Andrew Wells
Report.
As an Amazon.com Associate, I made $33.49 in referrals last quarter. My thanks go to all of you who made purchases through my online store or through one of the links on my blog. Amazon has reserved a gift certificate for me in the above amount which I will save for specific use toward my degree. Inevitably I regularly come across this or that book that is difficult to find, but I often can get it through the used book sellers on Amazon. So thanks again to all of you.
A few weeks back I wrote about a former student of mine, Josh Clark, who had worked up a scheme to get his own Mac by asking folks to donate $1 through PayPal. Although he raised about $67 this way, the funds eventually stopped coming in. Then he found another scheme that just happened to work. He researched the companies that offer free computers once you sign up for so many offers. He followed one of them through to the end and now he actually has a MacBook Pro which after all was said and done cost him about $30! Read his story at "How I Got a Mac for Next to Nothing."
Finally, the next installment on my favorite Bible translations (#8, the GNT) was halfway finished at the end of last week, but I'm neck-high grading papers for both IWU and SBTS and have had to make those a priority over everything else. Hopefully, I'll have that posted by the end of this week, so stay tuned.
And Happy Reformation Day!
As an Amazon.com Associate, I made $33.49 in referrals last quarter. My thanks go to all of you who made purchases through my online store or through one of the links on my blog. Amazon has reserved a gift certificate for me in the above amount which I will save for specific use toward my degree. Inevitably I regularly come across this or that book that is difficult to find, but I often can get it through the used book sellers on Amazon. So thanks again to all of you.
A few weeks back I wrote about a former student of mine, Josh Clark, who had worked up a scheme to get his own Mac by asking folks to donate $1 through PayPal. Although he raised about $67 this way, the funds eventually stopped coming in. Then he found another scheme that just happened to work. He researched the companies that offer free computers once you sign up for so many offers. He followed one of them through to the end and now he actually has a MacBook Pro which after all was said and done cost him about $30! Read his story at "How I Got a Mac for Next to Nothing."
Finally, the next installment on my favorite Bible translations (#8, the GNT) was halfway finished at the end of last week, but I'm neck-high grading papers for both IWU and SBTS and have had to make those a priority over everything else. Hopefully, I'll have that posted by the end of this week, so stay tuned.
And Happy Reformation Day!
The Andrew Wells Report
10/11/2006 20:10 Filed in:
Personal
Continue to pray for Andrew, and you can keep up to date at http://andrewwellsreport.blogspot.com/. Any encouraging comments for Andrew and Leila on their blog would certainly be appreciated by them.
Pray for Andrew Wells
10/11/2006 12:43 Filed in:
Personal
Andrew Wells, a frequent contributor
to This Lamp, was hospitalized in ICU on Tuesday suffering from
respiratory issues related to graft vs. host disease from a bone
marrow transplant he received as part of his treatment for
leukemia.
Andrew's condition is very serious and he needs your prayers. When I talked with his wife Leila Tuesday, she said that they were trying to sedate him because his body seemed to be fighting the respirator--trying to breathe over it. I asked Leila if he was awake. She said that when she went in to see him his eyes never opened so she doesn't even know if he was aware of his surroundings. This is a result of graft vs. host disease in his lungs and he may have a touch of pneumonia on top of that.
As of this morning Andrew was calm due to meds to sedate him. His heart rate is still very high and his blood pressure is fluctuating sometimes fairly low. Apparently the heart and bp issues are somewhat normal for what he is going through. One scan found nodules on his lungs which are likely pneumonia but further tests today will confirm if it is that or something other. He is on antibiotics for the possible pneumonia.
Leila and Andrew's mom stayed at the hospital overnight. She said she was able to get some sleep--she actually sounded a little better this morning.
A little while ago, I received this email from Leila:
"Rick, Just to let you know that we have some tentative good news. Andrew's fever has dropped by a degree (from 102 to 101) and they have gotten him off of one of three blood pressure medicines. This is good news. (It was bad that they had him on three.) I'll send out a larger update later once we have spoken to the doctors. The prayers are working. Keep 'em coming!"
I will post updates as I know more. If you are a praying person, please pray for Andrew.
UPDATE 10/12, 10 a.m.: Leila sent an email this morning with good news:
Andrew's condition is very serious and he needs your prayers. When I talked with his wife Leila Tuesday, she said that they were trying to sedate him because his body seemed to be fighting the respirator--trying to breathe over it. I asked Leila if he was awake. She said that when she went in to see him his eyes never opened so she doesn't even know if he was aware of his surroundings. This is a result of graft vs. host disease in his lungs and he may have a touch of pneumonia on top of that.
As of this morning Andrew was calm due to meds to sedate him. His heart rate is still very high and his blood pressure is fluctuating sometimes fairly low. Apparently the heart and bp issues are somewhat normal for what he is going through. One scan found nodules on his lungs which are likely pneumonia but further tests today will confirm if it is that or something other. He is on antibiotics for the possible pneumonia.
Leila and Andrew's mom stayed at the hospital overnight. She said she was able to get some sleep--she actually sounded a little better this morning.
A little while ago, I received this email from Leila:
"Rick, Just to let you know that we have some tentative good news. Andrew's fever has dropped by a degree (from 102 to 101) and they have gotten him off of one of three blood pressure medicines. This is good news. (It was bad that they had him on three.) I'll send out a larger update later once we have spoken to the doctors. The prayers are working. Keep 'em coming!"
I will post updates as I know more. If you are a praying person, please pray for Andrew.
UPDATE 10/12, 10 a.m.: Leila sent an email this morning with good news:
I have some wonderful news to share this morning. (I would have put it on the blog, but the Blogger server is not accessible at the moment.) Through the night, Andrew began to respond to the medicines. His heart rate is now down to about 120 beats per minute, which is the best it has been in a very long time (even before all of this started). His blood pressure is holding steady and they have taken him off of ALL of the blood pressure medicines! His fever is gone. His oxygen level is holding at 99% and they have scaled back the level of O2 they are giving him. Finally, they have identified the bacteria that brought on the sepsis: it is a garden-variety strep that caused his pneumonia, not the strange fungus or unidentifiable bacteria they originally suspected! We're not out of the woods. He's still on a vent, he's still on heavy antibiotics that bring increased risk of bleeding, he's still heavily sedated. We've got a long way to go, but we're pulling out.
Prayer works!!!!!!! Please keep praying and praising God this morning, because the lung doctor who is second in command here at Emory gave Andrew very little chance of pulling through the night yesterday. Given that he has/had sepsis, is severely immuno-compromised, and has pneumonia, I can't say that we had much confidence yesterday either, except in our God!
I'll update the blog as soon as I can get on the server. Thank you, everyone, for your fervent prayers. Please spread the word for us.
American Movie Classics: The Official "Wellsian" Rant
10/04/2006 10:10 Filed in:
Faith &
Reason
A special movie rant by
completely unhinged guest commentator Andrew
Wells
Because I’m recovering from my latest hospital visit, because Rick is so nice to share his blog, because I’m stuck in a chair, because I’m pumped full of steroids, because I’m on a quixotic quest, because I love all of you, you get three mini-movie rants for the price of one. Thank you for putting up with my insanity; enjoy the freakshow.
Rant 1: Turner Classic Movies is king. But American Movie Classics
(AMC) used to be a strong runner up. Then they decided to go
“hip” by adding commercials and picking really lousy
movies. AMC has a “movie of the month.” Perhaps because
of the recent issues involving privacy and wiretapping, their
current selection is Enemy of the
State. Basic plot: Will Smith unknowingly receives
evidence that will indict a high-level government official. In
order to get it back, the government turns his life to dust.
As a movie, Enemy is competent. But, along with Forrest Gump, Enemy
is perhaps the most hypocritical movie I’ve seen in ten
years. It says we need privacy, that government intrusion is bad.
Yet the movie practically drools over the electronics. If there is
such a thing as technology pornography, this is it. Everything it
shows contradicts its message. It’s genuinely insulting when
you stop to think about it.
The ridiculous icing on the cake is who helps Will Smith. It’s Gene Hackman, and he must have been desperate for the money, because he’s already made the definitive movie about privacy and secrecy, The Conversation.
The Conversation is Francis Ford Coppola’s forgotten fourth masterpiece (after Godfather One and Two and Apocalypse Now). Hackman plays Harry Caul, the best wiretapping expert in the business (back when wiretapping was using reel-to-reel). Caul moves to the West Coast because his work back east may have led to a murder. He’s anti-social but desperately in need of human connection, reclusive and racked with guilt. Hackman absolutely nails Caul, and the character type has become critical to the movies. There’s genuine fear and menace from outside forces here, as Caul discovers that no matter how much he tries to insulate his life, he’s powerless. It’s the true message we need to get out of the current debate, not a nifty gizmo movie like Enemy of the State.
Rant 2: AMC is also showing the remake of
The
In-Laws, starring Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks. The
produces thought if no one remembered the original, they could get
away with it. Judging from the commercial, they may have just used
the title. Big mistake; the original
In-Laws is one of the funniest farces ever. The daughter of a
Jewish dentist (Alan Arkin) is getting ready to marry the son of
Peter Faulk. Faulk may or may not be a CIA agent, and he may or may
not be trying to get Arkin killed. Faulk plays it hilariously loose
and improvised, but by the time they wind up in front of a Central
American firing squad, you realize it’s been Arkin’s
movie all along. Watching him completely lose it, using only his
facial features and mumbling, is one of the funniest acting bits
I’ve ever seen. Comedies usually fall apart for me, but
The In-Laws builds and builds and holds on all the way
through.
Rant 3: The one thing AMC is doing right is its DVD enhanced movie edition, which is actually kind of cool. You’d think otherwise, but other than having a good picture and sound, I’m not a big fan of DVD extras and releases, especially commentaries. They are hit and miss, and I don’t like people talking over a movie [Rick's note: This is true. Andrew is no fun at the movies because he yells at you if you make any comments--even during the trailers]. AMC solves that problem by using letterbox and providing lots of facts and details printed underneath, so you can read and watch. They had an excellent one on the first James Bond movie Dr. No and (of all things) the first Rambo movie (First Blood) a few months ago. The current one is Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (BCSK).
There’s been talk of a remake—with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, for crying out loud—and that’s about as ridiculous as they come, because BCSK is one of the most unique and timeless movies ever made. However, I’m convinced that the characters have become so iconic that people have forgotten the movie.
Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford)
rob trains, but they’ve become so notorious a posse has been
formed to hunt and kill them, no matter what. Along with
Sundance’s girlfriend, they head to Bolivia, but their
problems follow. The movie is supposed to be anti-establishment and
funny, and it is, largely because of Newman and Redford and how
well they inhabit the characters. And there is a lot of
humor--“Do you think you used enough dynamite, Butch?”
is one of the great understatements of all time.
The timeless movies are the ones that give you new things to think about long after you’ve seen them, and that’s what makes BCSK great. The movie plays very differently to me now, especially after 9/11 (never thought I’d say that). The pathos and fatalism of the characters and the story come to the surface early. These characters may have fun--especially Newman--but their world is changing and they can’t hide from that, and every time they face it, the movie grows darker. It feels far more representative of our reality now then it must have in 1969.
To even try to remake this seems ridiculous. Redford is pure star power here, and this, along with Cool Hand Luke, is the definitive image of Newman. Their chemistry is unmatchable. They re-teamed for The Sting, but that movie is much more about plot; the characters are what matter here. Newman has announced that he’s probably going to do one more movie before retiring, and he wants to do it with Redford, but they’ve had a frustrating twenty years trying to find a good script. Having them together would be a lovely way to go out. Here’s hoping AMC doesn’t chop that movie up.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Because I’m recovering from my latest hospital visit, because Rick is so nice to share his blog, because I’m stuck in a chair, because I’m pumped full of steroids, because I’m on a quixotic quest, because I love all of you, you get three mini-movie rants for the price of one. Thank you for putting up with my insanity; enjoy the freakshow.
The ridiculous icing on the cake is who helps Will Smith. It’s Gene Hackman, and he must have been desperate for the money, because he’s already made the definitive movie about privacy and secrecy, The Conversation.
The Conversation is Francis Ford Coppola’s forgotten fourth masterpiece (after Godfather One and Two and Apocalypse Now). Hackman plays Harry Caul, the best wiretapping expert in the business (back when wiretapping was using reel-to-reel). Caul moves to the West Coast because his work back east may have led to a murder. He’s anti-social but desperately in need of human connection, reclusive and racked with guilt. Hackman absolutely nails Caul, and the character type has become critical to the movies. There’s genuine fear and menace from outside forces here, as Caul discovers that no matter how much he tries to insulate his life, he’s powerless. It’s the true message we need to get out of the current debate, not a nifty gizmo movie like Enemy of the State.
Rant 3: The one thing AMC is doing right is its DVD enhanced movie edition, which is actually kind of cool. You’d think otherwise, but other than having a good picture and sound, I’m not a big fan of DVD extras and releases, especially commentaries. They are hit and miss, and I don’t like people talking over a movie [Rick's note: This is true. Andrew is no fun at the movies because he yells at you if you make any comments--even during the trailers]. AMC solves that problem by using letterbox and providing lots of facts and details printed underneath, so you can read and watch. They had an excellent one on the first James Bond movie Dr. No and (of all things) the first Rambo movie (First Blood) a few months ago. The current one is Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (BCSK).
There’s been talk of a remake—with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, for crying out loud—and that’s about as ridiculous as they come, because BCSK is one of the most unique and timeless movies ever made. However, I’m convinced that the characters have become so iconic that people have forgotten the movie.
The timeless movies are the ones that give you new things to think about long after you’ve seen them, and that’s what makes BCSK great. The movie plays very differently to me now, especially after 9/11 (never thought I’d say that). The pathos and fatalism of the characters and the story come to the surface early. These characters may have fun--especially Newman--but their world is changing and they can’t hide from that, and every time they face it, the movie grows darker. It feels far more representative of our reality now then it must have in 1969.
To even try to remake this seems ridiculous. Redford is pure star power here, and this, along with Cool Hand Luke, is the definitive image of Newman. Their chemistry is unmatchable. They re-teamed for The Sting, but that movie is much more about plot; the characters are what matter here. Newman has announced that he’s probably going to do one more movie before retiring, and he wants to do it with Redford, but they’ve had a frustrating twenty years trying to find a good script. Having them together would be a lovely way to go out. Here’s hoping AMC doesn’t chop that movie up.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Infernal Affairs
09/30/2006 01:25 Filed in:
Movies and
Television
A Guest Retrospective
Review by Andrew Wells
I'll watch a movie from just about any country, but I'm perplexed
by most of Asian cinema. Maybe I don't get the mindset of Eastern
thinking, or the style is so different as to be inscrutable for me,
but other than Akira Kurosawa--and forgive my pompous tone, but you
are not a true movie lover if you have not watched Kurosawa--I've mostly avoided them. Hollywood,
however, has been remaking or importing Asian movies by the
truckload. The most high-profile yet is the upcoming The
Departed, which has Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio,
Matt Damon--a pretty good triple punch in front of the camera--and
is directed by Martin Scorcese, who has a few good movies under his
belt.
I first heard about The Departed around two years ago. It's a remake of a Hong Kong film called Infernal Affairs. Intrigued, I laid aside my usual trepidations and checked out the original, and was rather surprised that I "got" it, perhaps because rather than assuming the audience will understand its mindset, the movie takes the time to lay out the characters and motivations.
Eager to break up a notorious Hong Kong gang, two police officials work for years to place a cop mole in deep undercover. They are the only ones that know about their mole. The gang boss, wanting to beat the police, works for years to get a gang mole into the police department. He's the only one who knows about his mole. Eventually, each leader figures out they have a mole. Guess who each leader sends to sniff out the other mole?
It's a brilliant setup. When everything in your life is a lie, do you become a lie too? Can you stay true to yourself when you've been someone else for so long? Each mole has to deal with these issues, in addition to solving their problems, working for their bosses and covering their tracks. The cop mole's issues are played out with a little more weight--especially toward the end--but the gang mole's issues aren't sold short either. One of the most interesting things, in fact, is the conflict that he has about his lifestyle.
The film has some riveting set pieces. There's a drug raid standoff where you just can't figure out how the moles are informing their bosses, and the answers turn out to be ingenious. A confrontation in the police station where everyone suddenly figures out what is going on is played for maximum drama. The movie makes credible moves to raise the stakes, but also supplies emotional resonance to the characters--something you don't always see in Asian cinema.
Eventually though, the movie just can't go anywhere else. Something will have to give. The movie tries to cushion that fall, but it's still a rough landing. The film further suffers from the traditional Asian postscript, where things are told rather then shown. But for three-fourths of it's time, Infernal Affairs is remarkably good, and I give it a high recommendation. As to The Departed, Scorcese has always had an interest in this type of material, and he's one of the few people I believe could improve on the original. So there's a lot to be hopeful for.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
I first heard about The Departed around two years ago. It's a remake of a Hong Kong film called Infernal Affairs. Intrigued, I laid aside my usual trepidations and checked out the original, and was rather surprised that I "got" it, perhaps because rather than assuming the audience will understand its mindset, the movie takes the time to lay out the characters and motivations.
Eager to break up a notorious Hong Kong gang, two police officials work for years to place a cop mole in deep undercover. They are the only ones that know about their mole. The gang boss, wanting to beat the police, works for years to get a gang mole into the police department. He's the only one who knows about his mole. Eventually, each leader figures out they have a mole. Guess who each leader sends to sniff out the other mole?
It's a brilliant setup. When everything in your life is a lie, do you become a lie too? Can you stay true to yourself when you've been someone else for so long? Each mole has to deal with these issues, in addition to solving their problems, working for their bosses and covering their tracks. The cop mole's issues are played out with a little more weight--especially toward the end--but the gang mole's issues aren't sold short either. One of the most interesting things, in fact, is the conflict that he has about his lifestyle.
The film has some riveting set pieces. There's a drug raid standoff where you just can't figure out how the moles are informing their bosses, and the answers turn out to be ingenious. A confrontation in the police station where everyone suddenly figures out what is going on is played for maximum drama. The movie makes credible moves to raise the stakes, but also supplies emotional resonance to the characters--something you don't always see in Asian cinema.
Eventually though, the movie just can't go anywhere else. Something will have to give. The movie tries to cushion that fall, but it's still a rough landing. The film further suffers from the traditional Asian postscript, where things are told rather then shown. But for three-fourths of it's time, Infernal Affairs is remarkably good, and I give it a high recommendation. As to The Departed, Scorcese has always had an interest in this type of material, and he's one of the few people I believe could improve on the original. So there's a lot to be hopeful for.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Retro Review: The Wicker Man (1973--the original version)
09/19/2006 08:13 Filed in:
Movies and
Television
Rick's note:
I've been quite busy the past few days (and had a brief
computer problem that has prevented me from posting), but stepping
into the gap is Andrew Wells to review the original 1973 version of
the Wicker Man. Be sure to read my review of the
2006 version staring Nicolas Cage.
A Guest Retrospective by Andrew Wells
Almost all movie remakes are pointless, but some seem especially
so. When I read Rick's review of the new remake of The Wicker
Man with Nicholas Cage, I had to really wonder what the
producers were thinking, because the original portrays events and
raises issues that are impossible to discuss with any sensibility
in this day and age.
Here's the scenario of the original movie: A call goes out to a police district headquarters in rural England. A little girl has gone missing from a small village on a remote isle. Sergeant Howie (Edward Woodward) travels by seaplane to investigate the disappearance. Although he comes off as a bit rigid in the portrayal, the movie goes to great length for the viewer to understand that Howie is a devout, practicing Christian (most likely Catholic) who draws strength from his faith. He is scheduled to be married in a week, but feels compelled by duty to go out to investigate the girl's disappearance.
The island's main employer and ruler is Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee, who has claimed this as his favorite role). In order to increase production and keep the workers happy, the rulers decided to long ago give up practicing Christianity and instead pursue paganism.
This is where The Wicker Man really gets macabre, because this is not your average Hollywood paganism (like witchcraft). The movie takes considerable time to explore a society that has evolved without Christian teaching. What would people act like? What would their morals be? How would their values appear in their surroundings? The movie comes up with some distrurbing ideas. The image I find hardest to shake is a group of children celebrating recess by dancing around a maypole and chanting hymns to an earth goddess like they were nursery rhymes.
Howie not only now has to find the missing girl, but he must do so in surroundings that are completely different to his beliefs. This leads to all sorts of temptations for Howie, much of it sexual. And this is where I want to be absolutely clear to the reader: Even though everything is given a proper context, and is by no means gratuitous, there is a fair amount of nudity in this movie, especially when Howie first arrives in the village. Sensitive viewers may want to skip the scene of Howie's night at the inn altogether. After that, the movie settles down somewhat, though the discussion is still frank.
Yet the movie remains, quite amazingly, fair-balanced in discussing Christianity and paganism. Though he has temptations, Howie proves to be quite strong and formidable in his faith. The scenes where he calls on God for strength are genuine moments. His alarm at the situation he is in does not keep him from doing his work or standing up for God. The pagan village, though shown to be peaceful and kind, is not glamorized as uninhibited and free-spirited. Quite the opposite, actually. Strenghts and weaknesses of both systems are pointed out and examined.
Why would anyone even TRY a remake? It is impossible to discuss this movie's ideas in the current culture. Religious belief of any kind is a powderkeg in the media right now. And to make a movie that rationally examines these issues, instead of pushing emotional buttons and taking shortcuts? Is that even possible? Would people be willing to take the time to listen? Would dialogue open up? Sadly, I doubt it.
So it makes sense that the new Wicker Man would most likely be a straight-on horror remake. But the new movie won't be able to get that right either. The original ending is one of the all-time movie shockers, but what makes it shocking is not what happens, but why it happens--and that's all tied in to the issues the movie raises.
Because of the aforementioned nudity and that shocking finale, I'm not going to endorse this movie. But if you are looking for a movie that will make you think, The Wicker Man is a good one. If nothing else, you'll wish you could find out what happens in the village next spring.
Andrew Wells may be contacted at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
For further investigation:
- The Wicker Man (1973): IMDB Page
- The Wicker Man (2006): IMDB Page
- From Wikipedia: The Wicker Man 1973 movie entry and "Wicker Man" general entry
A Guest Retrospective by Andrew Wells
Here's the scenario of the original movie: A call goes out to a police district headquarters in rural England. A little girl has gone missing from a small village on a remote isle. Sergeant Howie (Edward Woodward) travels by seaplane to investigate the disappearance. Although he comes off as a bit rigid in the portrayal, the movie goes to great length for the viewer to understand that Howie is a devout, practicing Christian (most likely Catholic) who draws strength from his faith. He is scheduled to be married in a week, but feels compelled by duty to go out to investigate the girl's disappearance.
The island's main employer and ruler is Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee, who has claimed this as his favorite role). In order to increase production and keep the workers happy, the rulers decided to long ago give up practicing Christianity and instead pursue paganism.
This is where The Wicker Man really gets macabre, because this is not your average Hollywood paganism (like witchcraft). The movie takes considerable time to explore a society that has evolved without Christian teaching. What would people act like? What would their morals be? How would their values appear in their surroundings? The movie comes up with some distrurbing ideas. The image I find hardest to shake is a group of children celebrating recess by dancing around a maypole and chanting hymns to an earth goddess like they were nursery rhymes.
Howie not only now has to find the missing girl, but he must do so in surroundings that are completely different to his beliefs. This leads to all sorts of temptations for Howie, much of it sexual. And this is where I want to be absolutely clear to the reader: Even though everything is given a proper context, and is by no means gratuitous, there is a fair amount of nudity in this movie, especially when Howie first arrives in the village. Sensitive viewers may want to skip the scene of Howie's night at the inn altogether. After that, the movie settles down somewhat, though the discussion is still frank.
Yet the movie remains, quite amazingly, fair-balanced in discussing Christianity and paganism. Though he has temptations, Howie proves to be quite strong and formidable in his faith. The scenes where he calls on God for strength are genuine moments. His alarm at the situation he is in does not keep him from doing his work or standing up for God. The pagan village, though shown to be peaceful and kind, is not glamorized as uninhibited and free-spirited. Quite the opposite, actually. Strenghts and weaknesses of both systems are pointed out and examined.
Why would anyone even TRY a remake? It is impossible to discuss this movie's ideas in the current culture. Religious belief of any kind is a powderkeg in the media right now. And to make a movie that rationally examines these issues, instead of pushing emotional buttons and taking shortcuts? Is that even possible? Would people be willing to take the time to listen? Would dialogue open up? Sadly, I doubt it.
So it makes sense that the new Wicker Man would most likely be a straight-on horror remake. But the new movie won't be able to get that right either. The original ending is one of the all-time movie shockers, but what makes it shocking is not what happens, but why it happens--and that's all tied in to the issues the movie raises.
Because of the aforementioned nudity and that shocking finale, I'm not going to endorse this movie. But if you are looking for a movie that will make you think, The Wicker Man is a good one. If nothing else, you'll wish you could find out what happens in the village next spring.
Andrew Wells may be contacted at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
For further investigation:
- The Wicker Man (1973): IMDB Page
- The Wicker Man (2006): IMDB Page
- From Wikipedia: The Wicker Man 1973 movie entry and "Wicker Man" general entry
Somebody Get an Anvil!
08/24/2006 20:44 Filed in:
Culture Watch
A Guest Rant by Andrew
Wells
There are plenty of news stories these days that indicate we have
entered the “bizarro world,” but sometimes you still
hear something shocking. It was announced earlier this week that a
British television company will be editing Tom and Jerry cartoons
so that there will not be images of the characters smoking. Usually
it is an image of Tom the cat with a blindfold on, taking a last
puff before an especially unpleasant demise. They will also be
editing The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo cartoons for the same
purpose.
I understand that there is a need to explain our culture and our heritage to children, and to make sure they understand it in the proper context. That includes cartoons. Cartoon Network did a special a couple of years ago that looked at Japanese racism in World War II cartoons, including racist slang and mentioning interment camps.
But come on…smoking? Tom and Jerry hit each other with frying pans, shovels, etc., set each other on fire, blow each other up, shoot at each other. They practice just about every form of cartoon violence possible. And this company is going to edit out smoking? Shouldn’t they be worried that children will be imitating some of Tom and Jerry’s other inappropriate behavior?
Furthermore, kids see smoking just about everywhere. Hollywood had a contract (written or unwritten) with the tobacco industry for years to show characters using cigarettes. Court documents have revealed that Joe Camel was especially created to get the youth market, and that tobacco advertising has been aimed toward children for years. Cutting it out of a cartoon, good intentions or not, is like putting a band-aid on a trauma wound.
But that’s not what really makes me mad. No, what is insane about this is that the company received a complaint from only ONE person. Not a group, not a bunch of people, just one person. A company caved in to one complaint.
These decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, I know. If
nine people have their cars set on fire through faulty wiring, then
it makes sense that the company inform the public and issue a
recall so that more people won’t get hurt or even killed. But
this makes no sense. Nothing is at stake here. How can you say Tom
and Jerry is the only single cause for your kids to start smoking?
But litigation, whether you win or lose, is expensive and bad
publicity, and I guess the company didn’t want to risk it. So
as the result of one person not taking responsibility for what
their children are seeing--because that is what should be happening
here--all of us lose a little bit of our childhood.
I wish Chuck Jones and Tex Avery were still alive. They directed some of the best Tom and Jerry cartoons, and I bet they would have something wickedly funny to say about this. As it is, I hope their ghosts find all the people involved in this and drop anvils on their heads. But not before giving them a blindfold and one last puff of a cigarette (and I just know that some of you are going to criticize me for that comment).
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
I understand that there is a need to explain our culture and our heritage to children, and to make sure they understand it in the proper context. That includes cartoons. Cartoon Network did a special a couple of years ago that looked at Japanese racism in World War II cartoons, including racist slang and mentioning interment camps.
But come on…smoking? Tom and Jerry hit each other with frying pans, shovels, etc., set each other on fire, blow each other up, shoot at each other. They practice just about every form of cartoon violence possible. And this company is going to edit out smoking? Shouldn’t they be worried that children will be imitating some of Tom and Jerry’s other inappropriate behavior?
Furthermore, kids see smoking just about everywhere. Hollywood had a contract (written or unwritten) with the tobacco industry for years to show characters using cigarettes. Court documents have revealed that Joe Camel was especially created to get the youth market, and that tobacco advertising has been aimed toward children for years. Cutting it out of a cartoon, good intentions or not, is like putting a band-aid on a trauma wound.
But that’s not what really makes me mad. No, what is insane about this is that the company received a complaint from only ONE person. Not a group, not a bunch of people, just one person. A company caved in to one complaint.
I wish Chuck Jones and Tex Avery were still alive. They directed some of the best Tom and Jerry cartoons, and I bet they would have something wickedly funny to say about this. As it is, I hope their ghosts find all the people involved in this and drop anvils on their heads. But not before giving them a blindfold and one last puff of a cigarette (and I just know that some of you are going to criticize me for that comment).
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Living Life on THE WIRE
08/17/2006 14:03 Filed in:
Faith &
Reason
Guest commentary by Andrew
Wells
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind
The Wire in the broadest sense is the story of cops trying
to build cases against drug dealers in Baltimore, but that hardly
does it justice. It's the most realistic cop show ever--dealing
with the politics and grunt work of being a policeman, the social
economics and realities of lower-class and minority Americans, the
long-term implications of the drug and crime culture and the war
upon it, and much, much more. It has crème-de-la-crème credentials:
the people who create and produce the show did Homicide,
another television milestone, and have actually lived and
experienced life in Baltimore. They are not making this up, because
they've seen it firsthand. The show has attracted some incredible,
actual writers: George Pecalanos, Richard Price, and Dennis Lehane,
among others. I’ve never heard or read a bad word about
The Wire. I’ve watched part of the first season on
DVD, and it really draws you in, like you’re reading a good
book (an oft-heard comparison).
And oh yeah: it's filthy. Maybe not Deadwood or Sopranos filthy (I’ve never had HBO; I've watched all of 15 minutes of Sopranos in a hotel room, so I don’t have a good comparison), but filthy enough that I couldn’t in good conscience watch the rest of the first season, and I haven’t even tried to crack open seasons two and three.
To be sure, and I'm not boasting about this; I’ve seen plenty of movies and television, read plenty of books, and listened to a lot of music with violence, language, sexuality and so on. And our society tends to group things poorly: the movie Almost Famous is a pretty tame R-rated movie compared to Kill Bill; Stephen King will never be mistaken for F. Scott Fitzgerald.
But that’s not my problem. No, my problem is that The Wire is a great artistically satisfying work, yet it also appalls me. And it sums up my issue: can artistic interests and Christianity exist at all?
I sort of touched on this problem in my piece concerning the current state of Christian music. I said more or less that the music industry doesn’t really do a good job of allowing Christian artists to explore musical (and even lyrical) avenues. But I think the problem can be seen all over the place. We have Frank Peretti, but where’s a Christian James Joyce? We have Thomas Kincaid, but where’s a Christian Picasso? We have the Left Behind series, but where’s a Christian Martin Scorcese?
No, those names were not picked randomly. Each one pushed boundaries in some way. They’ve explored life, religion, values, and many other related issues. And I don’t see the current mainstream Christian culture developing in this area. Yes, I know there are many "fringe" and "alternative" Christian artists of all genres, but there are a great many people unaware or unable to locate them, and that is who I’m thinking of. I know there are creative energies in the Christian community, but it could be so much more.
The flipside of the problem is that it seems all the creativity in the secular culture seems to be encased in material designed to be as shocking and/or perverse as possible. Granted, The Wire is a very real, tragic and involving story, but do we need to hear a four-letter word in every sentence? More importantly, is it wise to expose ourselves to this kind of secularism, no matter how much it appeals to us aesthetically? Can I listen to the Drive-By Truckers, a very good Southern rock band that write unbelievably intelligent and beautiful songs, but write about murder, drugs, drink, failed marriages and the like, because I can’t find anything remotely as satisfying in the Christian arena? Is it easier to be fulfilled by what ultimately will destroy you than by what will uplift you? And how does all this affect our relationship with Christ, our testimony, our lives?
I’m sure some people have simple answers--"Just walk away from temptation" and "Fill up on the Word of God" and so on. While those are good answers, I find they are not satisfying ones, because how we handle the world--and how we handle the aesthetic capacity God has given us--is a complex question.
What do you think?
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind
--Romans 12:2, NASB
It's easier to pull the trigger than play the guitar. Easier to
destroy than create.
--El Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) in
Desperado
We ain’t never gonna change / We ain’t doin’
nothin’ wrong / We ain’t never gonna change / So shut
your mouth and play along.
--"Never Gonna Change" by The Drive-By
Truckers, on The Dirty South
The following is something I've wanted to talk about for a while,
but had difficulty approaching. I thought about a multi-part
series, I thought about a rant, but nothing seemed to work. And
then I found out The Wire was starting its fourth season
on HBO, and the third season is out now on DVD. And I had my
opening.
And oh yeah: it's filthy. Maybe not Deadwood or Sopranos filthy (I’ve never had HBO; I've watched all of 15 minutes of Sopranos in a hotel room, so I don’t have a good comparison), but filthy enough that I couldn’t in good conscience watch the rest of the first season, and I haven’t even tried to crack open seasons two and three.
To be sure, and I'm not boasting about this; I’ve seen plenty of movies and television, read plenty of books, and listened to a lot of music with violence, language, sexuality and so on. And our society tends to group things poorly: the movie Almost Famous is a pretty tame R-rated movie compared to Kill Bill; Stephen King will never be mistaken for F. Scott Fitzgerald.
But that’s not my problem. No, my problem is that The Wire is a great artistically satisfying work, yet it also appalls me. And it sums up my issue: can artistic interests and Christianity exist at all?
I sort of touched on this problem in my piece concerning the current state of Christian music. I said more or less that the music industry doesn’t really do a good job of allowing Christian artists to explore musical (and even lyrical) avenues. But I think the problem can be seen all over the place. We have Frank Peretti, but where’s a Christian James Joyce? We have Thomas Kincaid, but where’s a Christian Picasso? We have the Left Behind series, but where’s a Christian Martin Scorcese?
No, those names were not picked randomly. Each one pushed boundaries in some way. They’ve explored life, religion, values, and many other related issues. And I don’t see the current mainstream Christian culture developing in this area. Yes, I know there are many "fringe" and "alternative" Christian artists of all genres, but there are a great many people unaware or unable to locate them, and that is who I’m thinking of. I know there are creative energies in the Christian community, but it could be so much more.
The flipside of the problem is that it seems all the creativity in the secular culture seems to be encased in material designed to be as shocking and/or perverse as possible. Granted, The Wire is a very real, tragic and involving story, but do we need to hear a four-letter word in every sentence? More importantly, is it wise to expose ourselves to this kind of secularism, no matter how much it appeals to us aesthetically? Can I listen to the Drive-By Truckers, a very good Southern rock band that write unbelievably intelligent and beautiful songs, but write about murder, drugs, drink, failed marriages and the like, because I can’t find anything remotely as satisfying in the Christian arena? Is it easier to be fulfilled by what ultimately will destroy you than by what will uplift you? And how does all this affect our relationship with Christ, our testimony, our lives?
I’m sure some people have simple answers--"Just walk away from temptation" and "Fill up on the Word of God" and so on. While those are good answers, I find they are not satisfying ones, because how we handle the world--and how we handle the aesthetic capacity God has given us--is a complex question.
What do you think?
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
The Impossible Super X-Pirate Vice Code in the Water
08/01/2006 21:36 Filed in:
Movies and
Television
A Guest Final Summer Movie
Recap by Andrew Wells
Final thoughts on the movie summer (yes, I know it’s August, but in Hollywood, it’s over).
The “If a Tree Falls” Award: To
Mission Impossible 3, which made almost 200 million, yet was
seen by nobody.
Best movie about Jesus Christ that didn’t mention Jesus Christ: Superman Returns. How messianic can you get?
Worst movie about Jesus Christ that did mention Jesus Christ: The DaVinci Code.
More things for Christians to worry about: While Code had much hoopla and made (relatively) little money in America, the movie has quietly racked up nearly $750 million dollars in other parts of the world.
Best way to kill Superman besides Kryptonite: Send Johnny Depp after him.
Second best way to kill Superman besides Kryptonite: Release an awesome trailer for the big movie event of next summer the day before your competition comes out, so that everybody will talk about you and not them.
Who’s laughing now: Everybody thought Fox Studios was being petty in racing to get X3 out because director Bryan Singer jumped ship to make Superman Returns. Yet they’ve made more money so far.
Can’t Get a Break Award: To Orlando Bloom, who will wind up starring in two of the most highly successful movie trilogies of all time, yet will probably never work again.
The book is probably better than the movie: Nobody seems to like M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. What might be the final nail in the coffin is Michael Bamberger’s book The Man Who Heard Voices, which provides an account of how Shyamalan came up with the movie, how he broke up with Disney studios over it, and how he got it made. The book argues that Shyamalan may be the most distinct original voice since directors Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick, but that he also may have the ego to match.
Lesson that Hollywood has finally learned: Despite the success of Miami Vice, movie makers seem to have realized that people don’t want to see movie adoptions of old TV shows anymore. At least till the next one comes out.
Lesson that Hollywood needs to learn: That special effects aren’t everything. It’s been 15 years since the true arrival of CGI in the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and that movie still looks better than almost anything coming out now. Everybody is amazed at Pirates' Davy Jones character, but I’d rather have consistency than the latest breakthrough. And does any director under 30 know how to use effects to help tell a story, instead of using it as a crutch?
Last year’s junk is this year’s treasure: Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was thoroughly trashed last year. But a director’s cut has come out this year, restoring over an hour of material. It supposedly makes all the difference in the world, turning a misunderstood movie into a great historical epic.
Christmas in July: We’ve got Spiderman 3, Pirates 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, Ocean’s 13, and a lot of other promising titles next summer. It’s the most excited I’ve been about movies in a long time.
Rick's Comment: C'mon, Andrew...I think I heard you say that same last sentence last summer.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Final thoughts on the movie summer (yes, I know it’s August, but in Hollywood, it’s over).
Best movie about Jesus Christ that didn’t mention Jesus Christ: Superman Returns. How messianic can you get?
Worst movie about Jesus Christ that did mention Jesus Christ: The DaVinci Code.
More things for Christians to worry about: While Code had much hoopla and made (relatively) little money in America, the movie has quietly racked up nearly $750 million dollars in other parts of the world.
Best way to kill Superman besides Kryptonite: Send Johnny Depp after him.
Second best way to kill Superman besides Kryptonite: Release an awesome trailer for the big movie event of next summer the day before your competition comes out, so that everybody will talk about you and not them.
Who’s laughing now: Everybody thought Fox Studios was being petty in racing to get X3 out because director Bryan Singer jumped ship to make Superman Returns. Yet they’ve made more money so far.
Can’t Get a Break Award: To Orlando Bloom, who will wind up starring in two of the most highly successful movie trilogies of all time, yet will probably never work again.
The book is probably better than the movie: Nobody seems to like M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. What might be the final nail in the coffin is Michael Bamberger’s book The Man Who Heard Voices, which provides an account of how Shyamalan came up with the movie, how he broke up with Disney studios over it, and how he got it made. The book argues that Shyamalan may be the most distinct original voice since directors Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick, but that he also may have the ego to match.
Lesson that Hollywood has finally learned: Despite the success of Miami Vice, movie makers seem to have realized that people don’t want to see movie adoptions of old TV shows anymore. At least till the next one comes out.
Lesson that Hollywood needs to learn: That special effects aren’t everything. It’s been 15 years since the true arrival of CGI in the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and that movie still looks better than almost anything coming out now. Everybody is amazed at Pirates' Davy Jones character, but I’d rather have consistency than the latest breakthrough. And does any director under 30 know how to use effects to help tell a story, instead of using it as a crutch?
Last year’s junk is this year’s treasure: Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was thoroughly trashed last year. But a director’s cut has come out this year, restoring over an hour of material. It supposedly makes all the difference in the world, turning a misunderstood movie into a great historical epic.
Christmas in July: We’ve got Spiderman 3, Pirates 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, Ocean’s 13, and a lot of other promising titles next summer. It’s the most excited I’ve been about movies in a long time.
Rick's Comment: C'mon, Andrew...I think I heard you say that same last sentence last summer.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
The Pirates Strike Back
07/13/2006 10:05 Filed in:
Movies and
Television
A Guest Review of
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's
Chest by Andrew Wells
In an article I read some years ago, George Lucas,
before he worked on Star
Wars, spent time with Francis Ford
Coppola on preproduction for Apocalypse
Now. Lucas and Coppola were looking for inspiration, so
they turned to Joseph Conrad’s The Heart of
Darkness, James Frazer’s The Golden Bough,
Michael Herr’s Dispatches and much of the work of
Joseph Campbell and T.S. Elliot.
Lucas can say all he wants about envisioning six or nine movies in his saga, but he probably thought he’d never get past Star Wars. But when he did, Lucas felt like he had to make a more “serious” film, and a “darker” one. The article argues that much of his research for Apocalypse factored into the themes of The Empire Strikes Back: fathers and sons, finding your true nature, and so on.
Apparently the same approach is used in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (hereafter referred to as Pirates, because it’s too long to keep typing). The first Pirates has its share of emotion (Barbosa’s soliloquy about his plight is saddening), but it is really just a popcorn movie with lots of action, scares and comedy.
Not this time around. We get some impressive action, including an exciting “Mexican standoff” version of a swordfight, some good scares and some comedy. But we also get serious themes about “What do you truly want?” and “Will you make the right choices at the right time?” It’s not quite sitting through a lecture, but after awhile it drags down the movie. And there is a lot of “dark”—physically and thematically.
Will and Elizabeth (Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley) have their wedding day ruined when they are arrested by Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), a representative of the East India Trading Company, for helping Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) escape from the noose. Beckett offers Will a deal: find Jack Sparrow, bring back Jack’s “broken” compass to be set free. Having no choice, Will agrees. Eventually, Elizabeth sets out on to find Will. Meanwhile, Jack is doing everything he can to hide from Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), because Jack owes him a very serious debt. So everybody travels their own paths, just like in Empire. And everybody has to confront some darkness in others and themselves, like in Empire. And the movie ends on a sort-of cliffhanger, with a lot of loose ends, like in Empire. Think of Yoda as a voodoo priestess, and you’ve got the idea.
Remember what I said about dark? Believe it. This has got to be the darkest movie Disney has ever given its logo, and is definitely NOT for children in any way. There are some gruesome images (including a man having his eye plucked out, a beating heart, any sight of Davy Jones and his crew) that probably should have gotten the movie an R. There’s also a lot of sexual innuendo—far more than in the first movie. And, like Empire, the whole movie has an undercurrent of darkness that can get under your skin.
It takes a while to get the story going (they could have probably figured out how to tighten up the first 45 minutes), but it’s unstoppable after that. The action is first rate. The special effects set a new standard, even if they are a bit uneven. The effects people get bonus points for the kraken, though, which looks like what Ray Harryhausen would have done if he had been asked to design the sand pit monster from Return of the Jedi.
The acting is good too. Pirates brings back most of the supporting players, including some real surprises. Bill Nighy, as Jones, is very impressive, given that the look of his character is entirely computer-generated. Depp gives Jack everything he’s got, doing some great physical comedy (it’s fun just to watch Jack run away).
But the serious tones underlying the story began to tear at the Jack character, which eventually dampens the movie. Without giving plot away, the movie wants Jack to stay a comical scoundrel, but also redeem him. Think of the character development of Han Solo without the smirk. But the movie veers on this issue wildly. For all his funniness, Jack does some very selfish, despicable things in this movie. But when we see Jack act upon a possible redemption, we cheer because we love Jack, but his actions are so out of character, especially in the last twenty minutes or so, that the movie almost falls apart.
It will be interesting to see where the movie’s makers go with all this for the third movie (coming next summer). Storywise, they go out with a truly great setup. But a redeemed Han Solo was really not much fun in Return of the Jedi and I’m not sure a redeemed Jack in the third Pirates will be either.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Also of interest: Official Disney website for the Pirates trilogy
Lucas can say all he wants about envisioning six or nine movies in his saga, but he probably thought he’d never get past Star Wars. But when he did, Lucas felt like he had to make a more “serious” film, and a “darker” one. The article argues that much of his research for Apocalypse factored into the themes of The Empire Strikes Back: fathers and sons, finding your true nature, and so on.
Apparently the same approach is used in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (hereafter referred to as Pirates, because it’s too long to keep typing). The first Pirates has its share of emotion (Barbosa’s soliloquy about his plight is saddening), but it is really just a popcorn movie with lots of action, scares and comedy.
Not this time around. We get some impressive action, including an exciting “Mexican standoff” version of a swordfight, some good scares and some comedy. But we also get serious themes about “What do you truly want?” and “Will you make the right choices at the right time?” It’s not quite sitting through a lecture, but after awhile it drags down the movie. And there is a lot of “dark”—physically and thematically.
Will and Elizabeth (Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley) have their wedding day ruined when they are arrested by Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), a representative of the East India Trading Company, for helping Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) escape from the noose. Beckett offers Will a deal: find Jack Sparrow, bring back Jack’s “broken” compass to be set free. Having no choice, Will agrees. Eventually, Elizabeth sets out on to find Will. Meanwhile, Jack is doing everything he can to hide from Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), because Jack owes him a very serious debt. So everybody travels their own paths, just like in Empire. And everybody has to confront some darkness in others and themselves, like in Empire. And the movie ends on a sort-of cliffhanger, with a lot of loose ends, like in Empire. Think of Yoda as a voodoo priestess, and you’ve got the idea.
Remember what I said about dark? Believe it. This has got to be the darkest movie Disney has ever given its logo, and is definitely NOT for children in any way. There are some gruesome images (including a man having his eye plucked out, a beating heart, any sight of Davy Jones and his crew) that probably should have gotten the movie an R. There’s also a lot of sexual innuendo—far more than in the first movie. And, like Empire, the whole movie has an undercurrent of darkness that can get under your skin.
It takes a while to get the story going (they could have probably figured out how to tighten up the first 45 minutes), but it’s unstoppable after that. The action is first rate. The special effects set a new standard, even if they are a bit uneven. The effects people get bonus points for the kraken, though, which looks like what Ray Harryhausen would have done if he had been asked to design the sand pit monster from Return of the Jedi.
The acting is good too. Pirates brings back most of the supporting players, including some real surprises. Bill Nighy, as Jones, is very impressive, given that the look of his character is entirely computer-generated. Depp gives Jack everything he’s got, doing some great physical comedy (it’s fun just to watch Jack run away).
But the serious tones underlying the story began to tear at the Jack character, which eventually dampens the movie. Without giving plot away, the movie wants Jack to stay a comical scoundrel, but also redeem him. Think of the character development of Han Solo without the smirk. But the movie veers on this issue wildly. For all his funniness, Jack does some very selfish, despicable things in this movie. But when we see Jack act upon a possible redemption, we cheer because we love Jack, but his actions are so out of character, especially in the last twenty minutes or so, that the movie almost falls apart.
It will be interesting to see where the movie’s makers go with all this for the third movie (coming next summer). Storywise, they go out with a truly great setup. But a redeemed Han Solo was really not much fun in Return of the Jedi and I’m not sure a redeemed Jack in the third Pirates will be either.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Also of interest: Official Disney website for the Pirates trilogy
Ocean’s 12: L’Autopsie du Cinéma
06/26/2006 17:15 Filed in:
Movies and
Television
A Guest Retro-Review by
Andrew Wells
I really loved the Ocean's
11 remake (I can’t vouch for the original, having
never seen it). It was popcorn fare done really smart, like they
used to do in Hollywood. Big stars acting but still being stars.
Effective character actors in supporting roles. A commercial
director who has artistic ambitions. Smooth as cotton candy, but
not forgettable--the kind of movie you want to watch when it shows
up on late-night TV, or you pull out of your DVD stack when you are
in the mood for fun.
So I saw the Ocean's 12 sequel when it came out in theaters, and it was bad. I got to watch it on DVD a couple of nights ago, and only did so because I wanted to give the movie a fair shake. It’s still bad. What went wrong?
The plot: Benedict (Andy Garcia), the bad guy that Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his crew stole money from in 11, is given information about who robbed him from a shadowy figure known as The Night Fox. Benedict demands his money back or else. Feeling they have no choice, Danny and the gang head to Europe to do a job to repay Benedict, but The Night Fox is a step ahead of them. Meanwhile, Rusty (Brad Pitt) must deal with an old flame turned police investigator (Catherine Zeta-Jones).
It seems like it takes forever to figure that out, because I’m guessing two-thirds of the time the movie gets in the way of itself. 12 commits three serious mistakes, in addition to a great many smaller ones.
First, the movie is too…French. Or European, if you want to be politically correct. Director Steven Soderberg has always made clear that foreign films and the avant-garde has an affect on his directing style. In his big studio productions, he’s usually been able to make effective use of these influences. Out of Sight, Traffic, and 11 and even Solaris are all good examples. In 12, however, the style just gets in the way. The oblique conversation with Danny, Rusty and Linus (Matt Damon) in the bar, the wacky comedy scene at the Paris train station, the attempt at farce when Tess (Julia Roberts) shows up to help in the heist—the style and format is all taken from French New Wave movies (such as The 400 Blows and Breathless). But no attempt has been made to work this material into the film; in fact, 12 comes off like a bunch of scenes strung together poorly, many of them improvised by the actors goofing around.
Improvisation, if there is any, may also be 12's second mistake. There were character moments in the first movie, but they were secondary to the plot. Here it is the other way around—the movie is less about plot than getting the characters together. There are long scenes where the characters just jabber, without getting anywhere, especially in the hotel. The characters, especially the supporting ones, aren’t built for the work, and neither are most of the actors playing them.
The third mistake involves the golden rule of con movies, which is show the audience the con. The idea is that the audience is supplied the information in the movie, but then something happens or is said that changes the meaning of everything that comes before it; thus, the con is revealed. In 11, this worked effectively. The audience knew the crew was pulling off an impossible robbery (i.e., the con), but did not realize the depth and cleverness of the con till the very end. Here, the audience doesn’t even get to see the real robbery, but also have to accept the improbable—that Danny and his crew knew the whole situation almost from the first moment, and were playing The Night Fox and Isabel the whole time. Special mention must be made of the improbable lasers (you’ll know it when you see it). Remember another movie golden rule: audiences will believe the impossible, but not the improbable.
The film has some good in it. The soundtrack is by retro-cool artist David Holmes, with lots of good percussion and horns. There are some excellent in-jokes regarding Hollywood and the first movie, including a hilarious cameo meltdown by Topher Grace. My favorite in-joke is what song Benedict is playing on the piano when he finds the Don Cheadle character. You have to watch the credits to discover it. Matt Damon comes off the best here--his character actually develops, and instead of goofing around, he’s trying to act. I can’t wait to see what he does with The Departed and The Bourne Ultimatum.
Amazingly, 12 made enough money that there will be an Ocean's 13 in 2007. Roberts and Zeta-Jones aren’t scheduled to star, but Al Pacino is involved, and supposedly the movie will take place in Las Vegas again. That’s probably a good idea, since 12’s visit to Europe was such a bust. Bon débarras!
Note: all mangling of French is the writer’s fault, since he doesn’t speak it.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
So I saw the Ocean's 12 sequel when it came out in theaters, and it was bad. I got to watch it on DVD a couple of nights ago, and only did so because I wanted to give the movie a fair shake. It’s still bad. What went wrong?
The plot: Benedict (Andy Garcia), the bad guy that Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his crew stole money from in 11, is given information about who robbed him from a shadowy figure known as The Night Fox. Benedict demands his money back or else. Feeling they have no choice, Danny and the gang head to Europe to do a job to repay Benedict, but The Night Fox is a step ahead of them. Meanwhile, Rusty (Brad Pitt) must deal with an old flame turned police investigator (Catherine Zeta-Jones).
It seems like it takes forever to figure that out, because I’m guessing two-thirds of the time the movie gets in the way of itself. 12 commits three serious mistakes, in addition to a great many smaller ones.
First, the movie is too…French. Or European, if you want to be politically correct. Director Steven Soderberg has always made clear that foreign films and the avant-garde has an affect on his directing style. In his big studio productions, he’s usually been able to make effective use of these influences. Out of Sight, Traffic, and 11 and even Solaris are all good examples. In 12, however, the style just gets in the way. The oblique conversation with Danny, Rusty and Linus (Matt Damon) in the bar, the wacky comedy scene at the Paris train station, the attempt at farce when Tess (Julia Roberts) shows up to help in the heist—the style and format is all taken from French New Wave movies (such as The 400 Blows and Breathless). But no attempt has been made to work this material into the film; in fact, 12 comes off like a bunch of scenes strung together poorly, many of them improvised by the actors goofing around.
Improvisation, if there is any, may also be 12's second mistake. There were character moments in the first movie, but they were secondary to the plot. Here it is the other way around—the movie is less about plot than getting the characters together. There are long scenes where the characters just jabber, without getting anywhere, especially in the hotel. The characters, especially the supporting ones, aren’t built for the work, and neither are most of the actors playing them.
The third mistake involves the golden rule of con movies, which is show the audience the con. The idea is that the audience is supplied the information in the movie, but then something happens or is said that changes the meaning of everything that comes before it; thus, the con is revealed. In 11, this worked effectively. The audience knew the crew was pulling off an impossible robbery (i.e., the con), but did not realize the depth and cleverness of the con till the very end. Here, the audience doesn’t even get to see the real robbery, but also have to accept the improbable—that Danny and his crew knew the whole situation almost from the first moment, and were playing The Night Fox and Isabel the whole time. Special mention must be made of the improbable lasers (you’ll know it when you see it). Remember another movie golden rule: audiences will believe the impossible, but not the improbable.
The film has some good in it. The soundtrack is by retro-cool artist David Holmes, with lots of good percussion and horns. There are some excellent in-jokes regarding Hollywood and the first movie, including a hilarious cameo meltdown by Topher Grace. My favorite in-joke is what song Benedict is playing on the piano when he finds the Don Cheadle character. You have to watch the credits to discover it. Matt Damon comes off the best here--his character actually develops, and instead of goofing around, he’s trying to act. I can’t wait to see what he does with The Departed and The Bourne Ultimatum.
Amazingly, 12 made enough money that there will be an Ocean's 13 in 2007. Roberts and Zeta-Jones aren’t scheduled to star, but Al Pacino is involved, and supposedly the movie will take place in Las Vegas again. That’s probably a good idea, since 12’s visit to Europe was such a bust. Bon débarras!
Note: all mangling of French is the writer’s fault, since he doesn’t speak it.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
Batman Returns: The Redemption
06/17/2006 23:59 Filed in:
Movies and
Television
A Guest Retrospective
Review by Andrew Wells
I spent a week recently at a beach house that had HBO, which showed Batman Begins one night. (I stand by my original review, although now I think the whole movie is over-edited, not just the action scenes.) The next day they showed the 1989 Batman, and that got me thinking about the whole series.
If Star Wars and Jaws were the beginning of the summer blockbuster, Batman was the perfection—everything we know about hype, tie-ins, media coverage, quick video turnover, etc. starts there. As much as I remember the movie, I remember the hysteria surrounding it even more. I’d seen movies before, but it was the first time I really started to become interested in them.
As a film, it holds up well, even with Jack Nicholson doing his umpteenth variation on Jack Nicholson. (Has he really done any real acting since The Shining?) Michael Keaton still proves to be a good casting call; the film is still a benchmark in production and design. Still, you can tell everybody was trying to figure out how to make a new type of comic book movie, something really different then before.
I've dissected Batman Begins elsewhere. Batman
Forever should only be noted for helping to boost Jim
Carrey’s career. The less said about Batman and
Robin, the better.
Which leaves Batman Returns. It came out after people had grown accustomed to comic book movies, but before the glut set in and everybody became familiar with the types (origin stories, etc.). The brief synopsis: Batman (Keaton again) must save Gotham City from the diabolical plans of The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and his new partner Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). The wild card is Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants revenge and Batman, but not necessarily in that order.
I believe only about twenty people in America like Batman Returns, which confounds me. Not only is it a good movie in its own right, it’s an important cinematic forefather to all the comic book movies we have now.
With Returns, I think director Tim Burton took his dark cinematic visions about as far as he has ever been able to go--with the exception of his Claymation productions, he hasn’t done anything like Returns since then, not even Mars Attacks!, which is more juvenile than subversive. As much as it is inspired by comic books, Returns is inspired by past films (especially early German and Art Deco films, like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and Robert Weine’s The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari) and nightmares. Circus people, trains, rubber ducks, cats, penguins and even snow: Burton puts so much menace and dread into childlike and innocent objects in this film, it’s amazing he got away with it.
More amazing still is that everyone working with him seems to get it too, and rises to the challenge. The movie has a totally different look from the first one, but is probably more in line with what Burton imagined originally. It’s probably one of the visually darkest movies ever, as if they shot it with a dust-covered lens. It has some dumb, probably studio required humor--do we need Batman to be a DJ?--but most of the movie heads straight into darkness.
And the actors seem to be letting their inner freaks lose. Keaton seems more comfortable with the role, and adds shades of grey to the character that weren’t there before. Devito overplays his part some, but that’s probably due more to the writing and makeup. Devito can be a good actor when he wants to, and he has some great scenes, especially when he pays respect at the graves of his human family. Pfeiffer, however, is playing Catwoman on a whole other level. She manages to show all the sides of the character, from Catwoman’s before and after transformation to the zeal with which she terrorizes Schrek to her struggle with loving Bruce Wayne/Batman. I’d argue it’s one of the best acted parts for a comic book character ever, and, it’s a standard most actors in comic book movies have been unable to achieve.
As a sort of comic book Rosetta Stone, Batman Returns has even more significance. By the time it came out, people were starting to become familiar with the new “darker” tone that Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and others had established with comic books in the 1980s. Batman started the trend that continues to this day, even as comic book movies have gone from fantastical to more “real-world” settings, like the worlds of Spiderman and the X-men. Returns, in fact, hinges on an interesting point in American cultural history, between a happy we-beat-the-bad guys ending in our fight against Communism and the darker physical, social, political and emotional reality that started with Tianammen Square and has continued ever sense.
This new reality really comes out in the characters. Batman beats the bad guys and saves Gotham, but he isn’t very happy about it, because the personal price is high. The reality of his need to fight evil conflicts with his love of Catwoman. The Penguin and Catwoman are villains of the piece, but are also to some degree sympathetic, which is routine now, but was very new then. We are supposed to be amused at Nicholson’s Joker, but we are never suppose to feel sorry for him the way we are for the Penguin and (especially) Catwoman. Even Schreck can now be seen as a prototype for future comic-book villains, such as the Kingpin. All the characters are multi-sided and complex, given the capacity to do good or evil, usually for some kind of personal gain rather than “because it’s the evil thing to do.” This trend has spread to other types of movies, such as the later James Bond films.
So there is my case: Batman Returns is a good movie and an important one. Go rediscover it. In the meantime, let’s hope they can get an actor who can bring real menace as the Joker, and an editor with a steadier hand, for the inevitable Batman Continues.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
I spent a week recently at a beach house that had HBO, which showed Batman Begins one night. (I stand by my original review, although now I think the whole movie is over-edited, not just the action scenes.) The next day they showed the 1989 Batman, and that got me thinking about the whole series.
If Star Wars and Jaws were the beginning of the summer blockbuster, Batman was the perfection—everything we know about hype, tie-ins, media coverage, quick video turnover, etc. starts there. As much as I remember the movie, I remember the hysteria surrounding it even more. I’d seen movies before, but it was the first time I really started to become interested in them.
As a film, it holds up well, even with Jack Nicholson doing his umpteenth variation on Jack Nicholson. (Has he really done any real acting since The Shining?) Michael Keaton still proves to be a good casting call; the film is still a benchmark in production and design. Still, you can tell everybody was trying to figure out how to make a new type of comic book movie, something really different then before.
Which leaves Batman Returns. It came out after people had grown accustomed to comic book movies, but before the glut set in and everybody became familiar with the types (origin stories, etc.). The brief synopsis: Batman (Keaton again) must save Gotham City from the diabolical plans of The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and his new partner Max Shreck (Christopher Walken). The wild card is Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants revenge and Batman, but not necessarily in that order.
I believe only about twenty people in America like Batman Returns, which confounds me. Not only is it a good movie in its own right, it’s an important cinematic forefather to all the comic book movies we have now.
With Returns, I think director Tim Burton took his dark cinematic visions about as far as he has ever been able to go--with the exception of his Claymation productions, he hasn’t done anything like Returns since then, not even Mars Attacks!, which is more juvenile than subversive. As much as it is inspired by comic books, Returns is inspired by past films (especially early German and Art Deco films, like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and Robert Weine’s The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari) and nightmares. Circus people, trains, rubber ducks, cats, penguins and even snow: Burton puts so much menace and dread into childlike and innocent objects in this film, it’s amazing he got away with it.
More amazing still is that everyone working with him seems to get it too, and rises to the challenge. The movie has a totally different look from the first one, but is probably more in line with what Burton imagined originally. It’s probably one of the visually darkest movies ever, as if they shot it with a dust-covered lens. It has some dumb, probably studio required humor--do we need Batman to be a DJ?--but most of the movie heads straight into darkness.
And the actors seem to be letting their inner freaks lose. Keaton seems more comfortable with the role, and adds shades of grey to the character that weren’t there before. Devito overplays his part some, but that’s probably due more to the writing and makeup. Devito can be a good actor when he wants to, and he has some great scenes, especially when he pays respect at the graves of his human family. Pfeiffer, however, is playing Catwoman on a whole other level. She manages to show all the sides of the character, from Catwoman’s before and after transformation to the zeal with which she terrorizes Schrek to her struggle with loving Bruce Wayne/Batman. I’d argue it’s one of the best acted parts for a comic book character ever, and, it’s a standard most actors in comic book movies have been unable to achieve.
As a sort of comic book Rosetta Stone, Batman Returns has even more significance. By the time it came out, people were starting to become familiar with the new “darker” tone that Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and others had established with comic books in the 1980s. Batman started the trend that continues to this day, even as comic book movies have gone from fantastical to more “real-world” settings, like the worlds of Spiderman and the X-men. Returns, in fact, hinges on an interesting point in American cultural history, between a happy we-beat-the-bad guys ending in our fight against Communism and the darker physical, social, political and emotional reality that started with Tianammen Square and has continued ever sense.
This new reality really comes out in the characters. Batman beats the bad guys and saves Gotham, but he isn’t very happy about it, because the personal price is high. The reality of his need to fight evil conflicts with his love of Catwoman. The Penguin and Catwoman are villains of the piece, but are also to some degree sympathetic, which is routine now, but was very new then. We are supposed to be amused at Nicholson’s Joker, but we are never suppose to feel sorry for him the way we are for the Penguin and (especially) Catwoman. Even Schreck can now be seen as a prototype for future comic-book villains, such as the Kingpin. All the characters are multi-sided and complex, given the capacity to do good or evil, usually for some kind of personal gain rather than “because it’s the evil thing to do.” This trend has spread to other types of movies, such as the later James Bond films.
So there is my case: Batman Returns is a good movie and an important one. Go rediscover it. In the meantime, let’s hope they can get an actor who can bring real menace as the Joker, and an editor with a steadier hand, for the inevitable Batman Continues.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
The Problems with Polls
06/14/2006 13:13 Filed in:
Politics
We haven't had a good political
blog entry on This Lamp in quite some time. Thankfully, Andrew
Wells has submitted this very timely reminder about the problems
inherent with over-reliance on surveys of public opinion. And he
doesn't mention it, but my doubts about the polling process,
especially the political polling process ,
is that they are only representative of people willing to answer
them. Generally, I'm not one of those people, and therefore the
polls don't reflect me or, for that matter, people like me.
--Rick
A Guest Blog by Andrew Wells
No doubt we will be hearing a lot about polls between now and the November elections. I’m already reading about polls concerning the 2008 elections.
It’s more than politics though. Polls seem to dominate every
area of our lives. Sixty percent of people believe in the power of
prayer. Forty percent think Tom Cruise has gone crazy. Twenty-five
percent think we eat too much. Fifteen percent would fly to another
country to have an important operation because it would be cheaper.
Eighty percent of people in the Middle East hate the U.S. And so on
and so forth.
How can the opinions of a hundred or a thousand people correctly represent the millions of people in this country, or the billions of people on this planet? It’s just not possible.
But there are other things that bother me about polls. Consider the words of David Mamet, who wrote an essay called "Poll Finds" nearly twenty years ago, when polling wasn’t as ingrained into the culture as it is now:
I believe that most people are savvy enough today to take any poll with a grain of salt. But we let the polls become self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, we hear enough polls about what voters want to hear, and the next thing you know, candidates are talking about those issues. There is a new book by Joe Klein called Politics Lost that argues that polls and the consultants who interpret them have derailed our entire voting process. Mamet argues that saying a "poll finds" can also mean a "poll rules; i.e., it proclaims what the majority of people are thinking or should be thinking. And because we don’t like "the responsibility of individual thought"--which could lead us to look unpopular against the crowd--even though we don’t believe in the polls, we accept the results as current truth, as what the majority of people think.
But again, consider: "A poll can only discover what the polled believe at that instant to be true. The difference between what many people believe to be true and what may in fact, be true is often and perhaps most times vast."
David McCullough’s excellent biography Truman goes
into great detail about his 1948 re-election as President. Phillip
Dewey, his contender, acted heavily on what the polls
said—that Americans did not like Truman or his actions, and
would happily vote him out of office. Dewey and his associates were
so confident, they didn’t even bother to campaign. Truman
went on a whistle-stop campaign—going town to town by train,
stopping at even the smallest communities—and emerged with a
very different picture of what Americans were thinking about him
and the state of the country. Truman, of course, went on to win,
even when everyone was saying Dewey would win, right up till
Election Day. Thus, we have the famous picture of Truman smiling,
holding up a newspaper that says "Dewey Defeats Truman." The story
is worth telling to emphasize the problem with polls: they rarely
represent everybody, and all of us need to stop taking them as
gospel and start speaking up for ourselves.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
One last comment from Rick: I can't help adding to Andrew's post the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:19 (as rendered by Eugene Peterson):
A Guest Blog by Andrew Wells
No doubt we will be hearing a lot about polls between now and the November elections. I’m already reading about polls concerning the 2008 elections.
How can the opinions of a hundred or a thousand people correctly represent the millions of people in this country, or the billions of people on this planet? It’s just not possible.
But there are other things that bother me about polls. Consider the words of David Mamet, who wrote an essay called "Poll Finds" nearly twenty years ago, when polling wasn’t as ingrained into the culture as it is now:
We know that polls are inaccurate and unjust. We are drawn to them not because of their ability to predict the future, but because of their ability to relieve us of the responsibility of individual thought...the person who answers the poll has no responsibility, they are asked how they feel at any given moment.
I believe that most people are savvy enough today to take any poll with a grain of salt. But we let the polls become self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, we hear enough polls about what voters want to hear, and the next thing you know, candidates are talking about those issues. There is a new book by Joe Klein called Politics Lost that argues that polls and the consultants who interpret them have derailed our entire voting process. Mamet argues that saying a "poll finds" can also mean a "poll rules; i.e., it proclaims what the majority of people are thinking or should be thinking. And because we don’t like "the responsibility of individual thought"--which could lead us to look unpopular against the crowd--even though we don’t believe in the polls, we accept the results as current truth, as what the majority of people think.
But again, consider: "A poll can only discover what the polled believe at that instant to be true. The difference between what many people believe to be true and what may in fact, be true is often and perhaps most times vast."
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
One last comment from Rick: I can't help adding to Andrew's post the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:19 (as rendered by Eugene Peterson):
"I came feasting and they called me a
lush, a friend of the riff-raff.
Opinion polls don’t count for much, do they?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
(Matt 11:19, The Message)
Whatever Happened to Christian Music?
05/21/2006 21:45 Filed in:
Music
GUEST BLOG BY ANDREW
WELLS
About twice a year or so, I break out some of my older music albums. I have been listening to music since around 1988, so I’ve been through a lot of music. This time around, I pulled out some old Petra (the Greg X.Voltz era, for those who remember) and, well, it rocked. Rocked hard, both musically and lyrically. “Chamelon”; “More Power to Ya”; “Get on Your Knees and Fight Like a Man.” What great music!
So what is the last Petra song I heard on the radio? “Lord I Lift Your Name on High.” A praise song with a more pop-oriented sound. Catchy, but nothing distinguished. And I have heard this song covered by at least a dozen artists, not to mention in church all the time. A far cry from “Why Should the Father Bother?” Maybe hearing the current Petra is okay for some, but for those with a longer history with the music, they are probably asking the same question I do every time I walk into a the Christian music section: What happened?
Christian music may be selling more and more product, and getting wider recognition, but musically and lyrically, it is in a huge creative slump, I think. I would love to listen to more Christian music, but I find it bland and boring (with some exceptions).
Most of the problem is that Christian music is a business, even if the industry’s goal is to honor Christ and shine a light on Him. And as the music business follows trends, so does Christian music. That is why there are so many praise and worship albums out and a bunch of younger bands doing what Petra is doing—making music that sounds the same as everybody else.
Please understand: there is nothing wrong with praise and worship music. Worship is an important part of the Christian life, and music is helpful in that point. And many of the contemporary praise songs are wonderful. But like anything else, I think it can get monotonous. For example, the only contemporary Christian radio station in my area (Columbia, SC) plays pretty much only praise music. Furthermore, they let listeners determine what they want to hear through Internet voting, so they play pretty much the same few songs by the same artists, and rarely play anything new. If you listened to this station without knowing anything, you’d think Steven Curtis Chapman stopped making music after his Speechless album (from 1999), that Mercy Me and Casting Crowns vanished after their big hits, and that Petra, the Newsboys and Third Day have never done anything but Christian music. Not every station is like this, I know, but it is frustrating.
There are artists past and present who are swimming against the tide, but the nature of the marketplace has driven them to the margins or out altogether. Charlie Peacock is the Paul Simon of Christian music; I know he is still making music, but I cannot find his albums anymore. Iona is a wonderful Irish/Celtic group that does albums around Christian themes; they do not even release albums in America anymore, and have not toured here in years. Sara Groves writes challenging, intimate songs about our relationship with God; I can find her in stores, but not on the radio.
But what really makes me sad is the loss of a lot of good artists. Steve Camp writes provocative songs in the spirit of Keith Green, but his uncompromising views have pushed him out of mainstream Christian music. Steve Taylor music was so eccentric with his music that he left the business entirely. Wayne Watson, Sandi Patty, Julie Miller, Kim Hill, Wes King, Phil Keaggy, Margaret Becker, Mylon Lefevere, Dallas Holm—the list goes on and on. And many record companies have let albums go out of print, so Christian music lovers cannot even check out musical history. Anyone seen a Degarmo and Key album lately? The 77s? Randy Stonehill? Whiteheart? Michael Card? Russ Taff? First Call?
As to the other problem—everyone making music that sounds the same—that is a common problem throughout Christian and secular music, both past and present. The market takes care of itself in some ways, eliminating some and leaving others (Crumbacher, anyone?). Furthermore, I would hope that any Christian musician(s) would be in the business for ministry and honoring God, and nothing else.
Certainly, God has given abundant talent to people who serve in music ministry, both in and out of church. And for many audiences, there is a certain comfort in the familiar. I do not know if there is a solution to the problem I am describing, but I would encourage people to look at Psalms for inspiration. Those poems and songs are about a lot more than praise—they cover every aspect of the Christian experience, and can be extremely challenging, convicting and inspiring. And finally, we must remember that God will put His message in the mouths of those He sends out, just as He did with the prophets and the disciples.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
About twice a year or so, I break out some of my older music albums. I have been listening to music since around 1988, so I’ve been through a lot of music. This time around, I pulled out some old Petra (the Greg X.Voltz era, for those who remember) and, well, it rocked. Rocked hard, both musically and lyrically. “Chamelon”; “More Power to Ya”; “Get on Your Knees and Fight Like a Man.” What great music!
So what is the last Petra song I heard on the radio? “Lord I Lift Your Name on High.” A praise song with a more pop-oriented sound. Catchy, but nothing distinguished. And I have heard this song covered by at least a dozen artists, not to mention in church all the time. A far cry from “Why Should the Father Bother?” Maybe hearing the current Petra is okay for some, but for those with a longer history with the music, they are probably asking the same question I do every time I walk into a the Christian music section: What happened?
Christian music may be selling more and more product, and getting wider recognition, but musically and lyrically, it is in a huge creative slump, I think. I would love to listen to more Christian music, but I find it bland and boring (with some exceptions).
Most of the problem is that Christian music is a business, even if the industry’s goal is to honor Christ and shine a light on Him. And as the music business follows trends, so does Christian music. That is why there are so many praise and worship albums out and a bunch of younger bands doing what Petra is doing—making music that sounds the same as everybody else.
Please understand: there is nothing wrong with praise and worship music. Worship is an important part of the Christian life, and music is helpful in that point. And many of the contemporary praise songs are wonderful. But like anything else, I think it can get monotonous. For example, the only contemporary Christian radio station in my area (Columbia, SC) plays pretty much only praise music. Furthermore, they let listeners determine what they want to hear through Internet voting, so they play pretty much the same few songs by the same artists, and rarely play anything new. If you listened to this station without knowing anything, you’d think Steven Curtis Chapman stopped making music after his Speechless album (from 1999), that Mercy Me and Casting Crowns vanished after their big hits, and that Petra, the Newsboys and Third Day have never done anything but Christian music. Not every station is like this, I know, but it is frustrating.
There are artists past and present who are swimming against the tide, but the nature of the marketplace has driven them to the margins or out altogether. Charlie Peacock is the Paul Simon of Christian music; I know he is still making music, but I cannot find his albums anymore. Iona is a wonderful Irish/Celtic group that does albums around Christian themes; they do not even release albums in America anymore, and have not toured here in years. Sara Groves writes challenging, intimate songs about our relationship with God; I can find her in stores, but not on the radio.
But what really makes me sad is the loss of a lot of good artists. Steve Camp writes provocative songs in the spirit of Keith Green, but his uncompromising views have pushed him out of mainstream Christian music. Steve Taylor music was so eccentric with his music that he left the business entirely. Wayne Watson, Sandi Patty, Julie Miller, Kim Hill, Wes King, Phil Keaggy, Margaret Becker, Mylon Lefevere, Dallas Holm—the list goes on and on. And many record companies have let albums go out of print, so Christian music lovers cannot even check out musical history. Anyone seen a Degarmo and Key album lately? The 77s? Randy Stonehill? Whiteheart? Michael Card? Russ Taff? First Call?
As to the other problem—everyone making music that sounds the same—that is a common problem throughout Christian and secular music, both past and present. The market takes care of itself in some ways, eliminating some and leaving others (Crumbacher, anyone?). Furthermore, I would hope that any Christian musician(s) would be in the business for ministry and honoring God, and nothing else.
Certainly, God has given abundant talent to people who serve in music ministry, both in and out of church. And for many audiences, there is a certain comfort in the familiar. I do not know if there is a solution to the problem I am describing, but I would encourage people to look at Psalms for inspiration. Those poems and songs are about a lot more than praise—they cover every aspect of the Christian experience, and can be extremely challenging, convicting and inspiring. And finally, we must remember that God will put His message in the mouths of those He sends out, just as He did with the prophets and the disciples.
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.