Sermon for Easter Sunday, Year B, "That's How It Could Have Happened," Mark 16:1-8

Sermon 4/1/18

Mark 16:1-8

That’s How It Could Have Happened

            In 1985, the movie Clue was released. Unlike movies based on books, the movie Clue was strangely based on the popular board game. You’ve probably played the game, where you race other players around the board, trying to solve the murder. You have to make accusations: “I think it was Miss Scarlett with the Rope in the Conservatory.” The movie brought these characters to life in a campy comedy film that did very poorly at the box office. In fact, the film did not earn as much as the movie cost to make. If you went to see the film in theatres and compared notes with your friend who attended a different showing, you might find that you’d seen a different ending. The film has three different ending – three different “solutions” to the mystery – and theatregoers were treated to one of the three endings at random. Like I said, though, the film wasn’t very successful in theatres. Eventually though, when released for home viewing, the movie gained quite a following. I first saw it at home, and it has become one of my favorites – just a clever, goofy movie. And if you rented the movie, you had a different experience of the ending: all three endings were shown, one after the other. So you’d watched the movie through the end, when the mystery was solved, and then, you’d see this screen: That’s How It Could Have Happened…and then But How about This? on the next screen. And then finally, But Here’s What Really Happened as the three endings played one after the other.

            I feel like we need a That’s How It Could Have Happened screen at the end of the gospel of Mark. When it comes to an account of Easter morning in the gospels, the gospel of Mark is startlingly different. The gospel of John is usually the odd gospel of the four, but not when it comes to the account of the resurrection of Jesus. Mark is really unique. If you flip in your Bibles to Mark chapter 16, you’ll see the brief account of the resurrection that we just read. You know, the awful one, where the women go back home and don’t tell anyone what’s happened! But then after that you’ll see notes adding “the shorter ending of Mark” – another verse – and “the longer ending of Mark” – another several paragraphs of text. What’s going on here? How strange is that? It reads like a choose-your-own-adventure. Which ending of Mark would you like? What’s going on with the crazy gospel of Mark?

            If you look at the footnotes that are likely to be in your Bible for Mark 16, the footnotes will tell you that the oldest copies of Mark’s gospel that we have end the way that we heard the gospel today: that short, clipped “and everybody went back home, afraid” ending. But some later manuscripts, copies of Mark’s gospel that appear in the hundred years or two hundred years after that include one of these longer endings. Most biblical scholars agree that they were additions, not written by Mark. The motive is clear? Everyone thought Mark’s ending was awful, awful enough that others tried to fix it by adding their own ending.

            And that’s ok, I guess. Because to be clear, Jesus is still resurrected in the gospel of Mark – God’s messengers at the tomb tell that to the women: “Jesus has been raised – Go, tell his disciples that Jesus is going to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” Jesus is resurrected. It’s just that no one seems to know it. The women are too stunned and afraid to really absorb what they’re hearing, and they just go back home. The alternate endings of Mark just fix the part that we, the humans in this story, seem to screw up at first. The other endings fix the failures of Mark’s ending.     

            But what if, this Easter morning, we sit with the failure for a little bit? During Holy Week, we talked a bit here about letting ourselves stay in difficult places, by Jesus’ side, even though they make us anxious, uncomfortable, and we don’t know quite what to say. I think the ending of Mark’s Easter story is another uncomfortable place, but if we can just stay here long enough, I think there’s a purpose for our being here.

            Lutheran pastor Diane Roth writes, "In Mark’s Gospel, failure is a more relevant word than triumph: the failure of the disciples, of the women, our failure, my failure … Among other things, that’s what I come face to face with in Mark’s story of the resurrection. The disciples fail to understand Jesus. The women run away and say nothing to anyone. Jesus rises from the dead but no one sees him. How is it possible that there is even a church around after 2,000 years, with all of this failure? … But lately I’m thinking that failure is the point. That Mark is the gospel of failure, our failure—and that resurrection grows only out of this … The Gospel of Mark is the gospel of failure. It is the theme that runs through the whole book, and it doesn’t resolve during those last eight verses—it’s like a piece of music that ends on a discordant note. I suppose this is why there are so many attempts to resolve it. Make your own ending! Add verses! But the gospel of failure is the gospel of life. It is the gospel of our lives, which, no matter how successful they are, always end in death. It is left to God to resurrect us, to complete the story and resolve the chord. It is left to God to overturn failure and create and re-create the church, despite our failures. It is up to God to raise the dead, including us. The women run away and say nothing to anyone. The disciples miss the point. The church leaders set the wrong priorities. The people are petty and small. And we’re here. Turning to the people, lifting high the cross. Listening once again to the music of failure, the triumph of God."[1]

            We are here! Easter people, even after failure. Resurrection people, even after the terrible ending of the gospel of Mark! And we’re here because even though we forget it over and over, resurrection isn’t something we do. Resurrection is what God does in us. I think we face failure again and again in life because we are trying so hard to resurrected ourselves, to create new life on our own steam, our own strength, our own gumption, and again and again we come up short, we find we can’t quite do it, and we fail. But here is the truly good news of our failure on this Easter morning: It is God who resurrects. We just have to open ourselves to God at work in us. We just get invited to share the amazing new of God’s work with others. And even when we screw that up, God of resurrection keeps on working, telling us that what we thought was the ending really wasn’t after all. Nadia Bolz-Webber says that our whole Christian faith is “really about resurrection. It’s about how God continues to reach into the graves we dig for ourselves and pull us out, giving us new life, in ways both dramatic and small.”[2]

            Whatever grave you think you’re in, friends, whatever ending you think you’ve reached in your life, your story, God promises resurrection to you, new life to you. Even with a start to Easter morning like the one Mark gives us, one that seems like a clear failure, where no one announces the good news, somehow, here we sit  two thousand years later, calling ourselves Easter people, resurrection people, followers of Jesus who believe that God has the power of life over death. Our very presence here is a testament to God’s resurrection power. God is in the business of pulling us out of our graves, pulling us out of death, out of isolation, out of destruction, out of failure, and setting us down in life, in hope, in promise, in love, in joy. The worst thing is never the last thing. We will choose the wrong endings. We will turn away, again, from the God who loves us unconditionally. We will fail. But the God of resurrection shows us a beginning beyond every ending.

            The tomb is empty. The women leave. They flee the site, seized by terror and amazement. They’re afraid. They say nothing to anyone. That’s how it could have happened…

            But … at some point … however long it took them, those women chose faith over fear, responding to the irresistible resurrection that God was working in the world. Look around, friends. Here we are, telling the resurrection story still, living it still, thanks to those very women. God is resurrecting us. God’s beginnings after our stumbling endings. Thanks be to God. Amen.

---

[1] Diane Roth, “April 1^st 2018 Easter Sunday,” The Christian Century,

 https://www.christiancentury.org/article/living-word/april-1-easter-sunday-mark-161-8

[2] Bolz-Weber, Nadia, https://www.facebook.com/nanjackwalter/posts/10215463073911520. I’m unsure where this quotation originates.

Review: Prince Caspian

When The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe came out in 2005 (can it have been that long ago already???), I was less than thrilled with the job done on putting one of my very favorite books on film. Still, as a dedicated fan, I felt obligated to check out the next installment in the Chronicles of Narnia: book two (in the correct, original order), Prince Caspian. Prince Caspian is not my favorite book in the series, but still, it's an important part of the whole.

I was very pleasantly surprised. I thought this film was much better than LWW. Actually, I've seen Caspian twice now, with two different sets of family. This movie takes more liberties with the book than did LWW, but I think the choices pay off and make sense in transitioning the book to the screen.

Acting wise, standouts include Peter Dinklage, (he was especially good, and I wish I'd seen him in more things) playing Trumpkin, Skandar Keynes, playing Edmund, and Anna Popplewell, playing Susan. Actually, all four of the children seem to growing into their acting roles, and Ben Barnes, as Prince Caspian, rounds out the group of young actors nicely.

Overall, the film was much darker then LWW. This is somewhat because of the story, but also because of how this film was written and directed. I liked the darker quality - it made the story seem more real, if that's a legitimate statement about a fantasy film. The crises seemed more urgent, the danger seemed more present, the character changes seemed more complete. The internal struggles were clearly communicated. I also thought that the make-up and costumes and effects were stronger in this film - that was a real complaint of mine in LWW. This time around, the centaurs, the minotaurs, the fauns, they all looked more 'realistic.'

Spiritually speaking, this film focused (less overtly probably than LWW) on faith/doubt themes, growing in your discipleship, temptation, moving on and letting go. In hand with reading the book, (which of course, is still better), watching this film with church folks should provide for good conversation. Also check out Eric Helm's thoughtful reflections on the movie. Updated: Forgot to also link to this excellent post by slavktivist about Caspian.

Next up in the series comes one of my favorites, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I hope the producers and director continue with the same tone and quality.

Review: American Gangster

Last weekend my mother and I went to see American Gangster, starring Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. We made the mistake of going to see it at the theatres at Garden State Plaza, which is a HUGE mall in Northern New Jersey. I've been there before, during the day on a weekday and late at night for an after-store hours movie, but I've never gone on a Saturday at what was apparently the start of the shopping season. It was a zoo, an absolute zoo. But, nevertheless, we made it to the movie, a packed early afternoon showing.

The film is really excellent. I try never to give away major plot points in my reviews, but if you don't want any details, it's probably best to stop reading now. Washington and Crowe are both excellent actors. They're such personalities that they never seem to completely disappear into their parts, but maybe that's something that can't be helped giving their celebrity status. But Washington in particular has such a charisma about him that it is hard to dislike him in any role, whether he plays the 'good guy' or the 'bad guy'.

That charisma is exactly what the film's subject has: Frank Lucas, huge figure in the drug industry in Harlem in the 1970s. Throughout the movie, we see again and again the repugnant, violent, unethical behavior that Lucas displays. And yet, you can't help but be rooting for him a bit. After seeing the movie, I read several interviews and articles about Lucas, and this likability seems to be a common theme - judges who sentenced him, cops who pursued him, journalists who wrote about him - they all seem to end up liking Lucas. Lucas is never particularly contrite about his actions. In fact, he's probably best described as a little wistful about his glory days. He has this charisma.

Charisma is an interesting quality, characteristic, that some people seem to possess, regardless of their moral standing. You don't have to be a 'good' person to be charismatic. Thinking about charisma got me thinking about church leadership and charisma. Are growing churches led by leaders with a certain amount of charisma? I guess that's pretty off topic to the movie review, but my mind always seems to go there! Jesus certainly had a quality of charisma that shines even through texts 2000 years old. He had more than charisma, but he had that too. Have you ever known people you just loved being around, other qualities aside?

The film isn't a 'message' movie - it doesn't paint exact pictures for you of conclusions you should draw, but there are certainly subtle points made - underlying commentary on drugs and their impact, issues of race and racism, the Vietnam war and military personnel. Frank Lucas flew under the radar of law enforcement for so long because no one believed a black man could be in his position of power - do you cheer on the 'achievement' of Lucas, breaking racial barriers of the illegal variety? Questions come up about the military and drug use, and some characters in the movie don't want questions to be asked because of how bad it will make things look, regardless of how things are. These are all quiet themes in the storyline.

Clergy in Film and Television

I don't know if any of you are ER fans, but I've been watching it on and off since it first came on air. This week, they introduced a new character - a hospital chaplain (female, as it happens) who will become the romantic interest for one of the series regulars. I'm curious to see where they will take this story. In her first episode, she talks about having a spiritual life and being concerned with spiritual issues, but also being a 'regular person' or something like that. I'm curious to see where they take this character.

I'm often frustrated with the way clergy are portrayed in film and television. So often the clergy person in question is just a caricature, someone who is completely out of touch with the real concerns and needs of people. Maybe that's just a harsh but telling judgment on the role of clergy/church in the world today. But most pastors I know have a lot more to offer than empty words! To see a clergy person portrayed as rounded and fleshed out is much more rare.

Examples I can think of off the top of my head of clergy in film and TV:
- Seventh Heaven, the WB show about a pastor and his family
- Raising Helen, a movie with John Corbett and Kate Hudson where Hudson's character falls in love with Corbett's character, a pastor.
- LOST, my favorite show, had Mr. Eko, a priest of sorts, with some very questionable theological descriptions of baptism and its meaning: (emphasis mine)

CLAIRE: Charlie told me you were a priest.

EKO: Yes.

CLAIRE: He said that you told him that I had to have --

EKO: I did not tell Charlie to do what he did. I'm sorry if he misunderstood me.

CLAIRE: But, do you think the baby has to be baptized?

EKO: Do you know what baptism is?

CLAIRE: It's what gets you into heaven.

EKO: It is said that when John the Baptist baptized Jesus the skies opened up and a dove flew down from the sky. This told John something -- that he had cleansed this man of all his sins. That he had freed him. Heaven came much later.

CLAIRE: I haven't been baptized. Does that mean that if you do it to Aaron and something happened to us that we wouldn't be together?

EKO: Not if I baptize you both. (source)


Can you think of other examples? Do you think that TV/film shapes people's perception of clergy, or that TV/film's representation of clergy is shaped by real experiences, or both/neither?

Movie Review: Eastern Promises

This past weekend I went to see David Cronenberg's new film, Eastern Promises. I knew this film was supposed to be very graphic and violent, but I'm a fan of Viggo Mortensen and really wanted to see the film. I really liked A History of Violence, and figured another Cronenberg/Mortensen combination would be a good match, and the film has already been getting a lot of Oscar buzz (which sometimes means something...)

The film centers around Anna, a mid-wife, played by Naomi Watts. She delivers the baby of a Russian girl, 14, who dies in childbirth. Anna, for reasons made clear in the film, can't let go until she finds the girl's (and baby's) family. She has the girl's diary, and seeks to follow the clues in it. Her quest leads her right into the Russian mafia, including twinkling-eyed Semyon Armin Mueller-Stahl, his son Kirill (Vincent Cassel), and Kirill's friend/'driver', Nikolai, played by Mortensen.

The film is certainly graphic and violent as promised. But the images aren't gratuitous as they are in so many popular movies. The tagline of this film is "Every Sin Leaves a Mark," and that's a good theme to focus on in this movie. Actions and consequences. A seemingly never ending cycle, an unbreakable cycle of this life that is killing, body and soul, so many people in the story. Motivations - why are the people in the film making the choices they are? What leads Anna on her quest for justice in this case? Why do those caught up in the mafia do what they do? How did they get into the life they're in? Why?

I don't want to say too much more about the plot details, because it would really detract from your being able to enjoy the movie yourself. But I definitely recommend it!

Reviews

I've either read or seen several things lately that deserve a mention, but aren't things I will take the time to review fully. So, here's a brief review of many things:

Movies:
Evan Almighty - We went to see this as a group from my church for part of our summer movie study. It was cute. Not as good as Bruce Almighty. As I've read in reviews, this movie did indeed seem to dumb things down. The theological/faith questions that were raised in Bruce Almighty just weren't there in this one. But still, a few good points of discussion and of course Steve Carrell is always great.

Evening - Disappointing. I thought it would have to be good with such a cast. But it was just bad.
Knocked Up - So vulgar, of course, but also very sweet, and hilarious. I can't remember laughing so hard at a movie in a long, long time.

Hairspray - So much fun! A movie where you just have a big grin plastered on your face from watching it. The music will get stuck in your head.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - The struggle with the HP movies is getting all of the richness of the book onto the screen. I thought the movie left too much out, as always, but visually the movie was excellent, and Imelda Staunton as Delores Umbridge is so perfectly infuriating.


Books:
Fluke, Practical Demonkeeping and You Suck, by Christopher Moore - Moore's Lamb, which I read last year, was one of the best books I've ever read. I wanted to see if his other works were as good. Of course, the subject matter of Lamb is more interesting to me than his other books, so it isn't a totally fair comparison. Fluke was OK, but not great. Practical Demonkeeping was better, and Love Sucks was my favorite of these three. Moore has a funny sense of humor and an easy-to-read style of writing. Even though I haven't enjoyed these as much as Lamb, I've enjoyed them enough to keep reading more of his work.

I'm not ready to write my Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows review yet, but here is a good review along the lines of what I'm thinking.

Bits and Pieces

I am in Washington, DC for the rest of the week at the spring meeting of the General Board of Church and Society, so pretty soon you'll get to hear my usual meeting reflections, lucky readers!

For now, a few thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head with not enough to them for individual posts:

• Mini-review: I recently listened to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, by Jonathan Safran Foer on audio CD. What a fantastic book! I highly recommend it. The main character is 9 year-old Oskar Schell, who is trying to cope with life after losing his father in the World Trade Center on 9/11. I found myself literally saying, "Oh!" out loud while listening, because there are so many simply deeply moving scenes.

• Mini-review: I also recently saw In the Land of Women with my mom. The movie stars Meg Ryan, Adam Brody, and Kristen Stewart, and focuses on Brody's character, Carter, who tries to get some direction for himself following a breakup. I wasn't expecting much - a light movie to enjoy - and certainly it wasn't an Oscar-contender or anything, but I thought it was better than expected. It was strange to see Meg Ryan not as the romantic lead exactly, but as the older woman - the mother - and I thought she gave a good performance. Stewart is fine as the brooding teenage daughter, though the girl is seriously skinny - distractingly skinny, worrisomely skinny. Brody - cute, ok.

• Last weekend I had a meeting (Camps, Conferences and Retreat Ministries - CCRM) at one of our conference camps, Camp Aldersgate. I grew up going to Aldersgate (located in Brantingham, NY, in the foothills of the Adirondacks), loving it, packing my bags weeks before camp, and eventually was on staff myself as a lifeguard. But I was remembering - when I was hired as a lifeguard, I wasn't actually certified as a lifeguard. They had to send me to one of those one-week intensive lifeguard training things. And in fact, I wasn't even a very good swimmer when I was hired as a lifeguard. But once I was hired as a lifeguard, I became a good swimmer. I knew that to even begin the crash-course, I would have to start with a 20-lap swim, which I definitely couldn't do at the time of hiring. So I switched from my regular gym class to the beginning swim class at my high-school, and the teacher just let me swim laps while she gave everyone else lessons. I just swam and swam, and she would give me occasional tips on form, etc. So by the time I started work, I was ready to be a lifeguard. I don't know - I guess I was reminiscing as I was looking out at Pleasant Lake, and thinking about how sometimes we need to be asked and expected to do something before we can learn to do it, and know that we can do it. Does that make any sense?

• VA Tech - I've read so many good reflections on the VA Tech tragedy, and keep feeling like I should write about it too, but the truth is that I have no idea what to say other than that it is a horrible, tragic event and I'm so sorry for all the people whose lives are impacted by it. Andy B. at Enter the Rainbow had some insightful thoughts to share, so I direct you there.
  

New Book Study and a Movie 'Study'

I mentioned a while back that St. Paul's was engaging in a book study of Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus. The live study went very well - I had about 8 in the class, and I think everyone enjoyed the book. I also tried an online version of the study through a blog, which was mostly unvisited, and, eventually, un-updated.

Well, we've just started a new book study, and I'm going to try to blog through the study again - this time we've selected Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, by John Dominic Crossan and Johnathan L. Reed. Unlike Secret Message, I haven't read this book in advance, and am reading it along with the class. So far I'm through the prologue, introduction, and most of chapter 1, and I already find it quite fascinating. The book takes a two-pronged approach to looking at Jesus in historical context - the written word and the 'words' from the archaeological record. So, check out the book blog for an online version of this study, coming soon, and hopefully more consistently.

This summer, we're having two more studies at St. Paul's - a short term disciple study on Romans, and a movie 'study'. We'll be watching movies every week and talking about them - what spiritual/theological/ethical issues they raise, etc. So far, I'm pretty sure we'll be watching Romero and of course my personal favorite, Jesus Christ Superstar. But the movies don't have to be so overtly 'religious', and I'm looking for some good suggestions. What should we watch?

Review: Pan's Labyrinth

This week I went to see Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del Fauno). (I will try not to give too many details, but please don't read this review if you don't want to be spoiled!) I had read some good things about the movie, and wanted to see it to have seen it, but wasn't particularly excited about it. I was surprised, very pleasantly surprised. This was an excellent, excellent film. In fact, it is definitely one of the best movies I've seen in some time.

I found the previews for the movie, which suggest that the film is mostly a child's fantasy, to be misleading. The fantasy element is certainly a huge part of the film, but the previews that I saw mostly overlooked the 'reality' part of the movie - the war zone that is the backdrop for the fantasy world. Overall, though, the whole film has something of a fairy-tale feel to it, while at the same time maintaining a horrible, cruel realism. I found myself just blinking dumbly at the screen when the credits started to roll. This is definitely an emotionally draining movie.

The acting was superb - no actors that I recognized, though most all of them have lengthy resumes of work in Spanish films. Notable: Ivana Baquero, the (now) 12 year-old star, Maribel Verdu, Doug Jones (who plays two roles in the film, not that you'd know it without looking at the credits), Alex Angulo, and Sergi Lopez.

The film touches on themes of perseverance - what are we able to cope with, as humans? And how do we cope with it? How do we manage? Of course, children are in most things more resilient than adults - they can handle so much more than can adults. They handle things differently. And this film is a bittersweet look at how one child copes with the unspeakable things she continually and unrelentingly is seeing and experiencing.

Highly recommended.

Review: Blood Diamond

Last week I went to see Blood Diamond, and I've had a half-written review sitting in my draft posts since then. Ah, procrastination!

I never understand the kind of reviews Blood Diamond got, which are typical reviews that roll out for movies of this kind. The review goes: this is a bad movie because it makes you think too much, and has a clear message that it wants you to take away. I know what they're getting at, but is this such a bad thing? Is it bad for a movie's story to want to show you certain things, lead you to certain conclusions? Why is it so bad if a movie illicits feelings of guilt or responsibility for us? God forbid! God forbid a movie inspire us to action or changed behavior or even just new knowledge... Movies in particular that give us a look at anything going on in Africa are few and far between, so I will take one and the message that comes with it when I can.

This movie was excellent and moving and horrifying, horrifying because the things portrayed, while not autobiographical of anyone in particular, are based on fact. Particularly startling are scenes that look at child soldiers and the lives children endure in such tumultuous locations. Appalling.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, and Jennifer Connelly star in Blood Diamond. DiCaprio continues to impress me with his acting. He just seems so natural in such varying roles. Hounsou is also excellent and he communicates so much with his facial expressions. Connelly has never been a favorite of mine - I've always thought she was a bit overrated, except, of course, in Labyrinth. I thought in the first scenes she was in in this film that I wasn't going to like her character - she was a bit stiff in her delivery. But by the end of the film, she really grew on me.

The plot of the movie is predictable, I guess you could say. But in a movie like this, I'm not sure an intriguing plot is the point. The point is to show you something you haven't seen. And in that, the movie was successful and compelling. I was reminded of how closed our eyes are to things that are going on across the ocean. And I don't think we want to see it - so maybe, in a small way, this movie helps.

Review: The Pursuit of Happyness

Last week, I went to see The Pursuit of Happyness. I've been meaning to write a review, but just couldn't get it together. Heads up: ***If you don't want to know anything about the plot, please don't read this post. I'll try not to get to specific, but I can't write much of what I want without some details.***

First, foremost - Will Smith is absolutely superb. He is really an excellent actor. Don't underestimate him because of his Fresh Prince days, or if you don't go for light movie like Hitch or I, Robot. He is a gifted actor. I first saw him in a serious role when I had to watch Six Degrees of Separation for a class in college (a movie that is a must-see in my mind). Smith communicates so clearly every emotion and feeling - by the climax of the film tears were streaming down my face - and I really hate to cry at movies.

Smith has a pretty uniquely solid track record at the box office - most of his films open in first place, and he is one of those rare actors that seems to appear across the board to audiences - men, women, young, old, black, white. Did you know that Will Smith has the highest opening weekend average of any actor? I think he must feel pretty awesome about how consistently well-received he is, about how well-liked he is, because actors of color certainly still have a long battle before they are as frequently cast, well-paid, universally received, etc., as white actors. Smith seems to be a barrier-breaker.

Other stand-outs in the film are Thandie Newton, as Smith's wife - I've only seen her in a couple of things, and not been very impressed - but she seemed to really live into this character. And of course, Jaden Smith, Will Smith's son, was adorable, and it was fun to watch real-life father and son interact on screen.

About the movie itself, the story. The film is based on the real life story of Chris Gardner, a man who struggled to raise his son and keep it together financially while trying to secure a lucrative (and stable) job as a stock broker. The story is very moving at points - the hardships, the struggles of someone trying to make ends meet - this part of the film was very realistic. You could just feel the hopelessness of the situation, and the impossibility of ever getting ahead when one little financial crisis would turn into a huge crisis. If you've ever really had financial trouble, really had trouble, you know how true some of these scenarios are - how miscalculating your budget by $5 or $10 can totally screw you up for weeks afterward. I thought this message communicated pretty clearly. Also, pay special attention to Gardner's monologue about the title - the pursuit of happiness. He ponders, takes note that Jefferson never said that happiness was a right, just pursuing happiness, as if knowing that we have trouble ever actually getting to a state of happiness. Is happiness something we can only chase after?

More problematic for me was where the story ultimately goes. I'm afraid the film might communicate a message of "if you just try hard enough, you can be rich instead of poor" message. Gardner's story surely is inspiring, but it is also a 1 in a million story. Gardner works and works and works to provide for his family, but he doesn't just end up a stable, caring parent, he ends up a millionaire. Is that the ultimate goal in our pursuit of happiness?

You can read an article about the real life Chris Gardner here. I was glad to learn that he does pay quite a bit of attention still to helping those who are where he once was.

Still, problems aside, the film is worth seeing just to see Will Smith.

Review: Stranger Than Fiction

I went to see Stranger Than Fiction last week. This time of year when there are so many 'awards season' movies out, contenders for the big prizes, I find it hard to pick what to see - too overwhelming. But my friend and I arrived at the theatre without a specific movie in mind, so we just picked what was playing next - Stranger Than Fiction. I was a little wary of the movie because I'm not a huge Will Farrell fan. Ok, I laughed all through Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, but I was doubtful that he could pull of a serious role like this one.

Well, he pulled it off. I really enjoyed the movie. If you've seen the previews, you've seen the basic premise: Will Farrell plays a straight-laced man who finds that his life is being narrated by some voice, and the voice says his death is just around the corner. He tries to find the author and persuade her not to write his death, and in the process of his quest, he tries to live differently - in a way that the voice doesn't predict. The narration of his life makes him realize how mundane and unsatisfying his life has been so far.

Farrell was really excellent in the role. The film has many absurd qualities, and he fit right in as a person who plays absurd so often - but his role was definitely a huge change from his typical. The other actors were also great - Emma Thompson, who I think is one of the best actresses around, plays the author. Dustin Hoffman is excellent as a quirky professor Farrell goes to for advice. Maggie Gyllenhaal, another favorite, plays a woman Farrell audits (he's an IRS guy.) Queen Latifah's talents are unfortunately mostly wasted in a small, underused role as Thompson's assistant.

The film has a basic message of 'carpe diem - seize the day.' It isn't necessarily profound, but I guess like all such life lessons, we need to keep hearing it until we're living it. I can't remember where I read it recently - I think maybe in an article in Relevant magazine - an article that asked, "what are you waiting for until you really start you life?" I didn't say that well. What excuse do you keep putting out to yourself or to others that goes like this: "I'll get around to [the thing I'm really called to be doing/meant to be doing/passionate about/convicted about doing] as soon as [this other life thing happens/falls into place/gets settled.]" I'm very guilty of this. I'm very guilty of saying to myself that I'll start doing things the way I think I really should be after I get my PhD, or after I'm ordained (that excuse is no longer valid!), or even just after the new year. The point is - what are you waiting for? This is it already - this is your life. It has already started, is already well underway, and if you keep waiting for the perfect time to act, your life will be well over before you get anywhere.

Anyway, I'm trying to take that message a bit to heart, and trying to think about what I've been putting off that I know I should be attending to now. But maybe I'll start in the morning... :)

Update: For Andy B.'s more profound Christological view of the movie, read here.

Movie Review: The Departed

Last weekend a friend and I went to see The Departed, the new Martin Scorsese film. It wasn't the top film on my list to see, but it seemed to be the available film to see at the right time at a theatre that was easy to get to, so off we went.

I really enjoyed the film, I think. It was one of those films where I just wasn't quite sure what to say when I left. What I did not like, however, was the audience who saw the film with me. I saw the film while I was in DC, so it was a bigger theatre with far more movie-viewing-companions than I'm used to for anything other than Harry Potter openings. The audience seemed to be laughing at totally inappropriate places, where the action just wasn't funny. I've got a good sense of humor, I think, but what I was seeing wasn't funny, wasn't meant to be funny, and if you thought some of it was funny - well, I worry about you. I also had to roll my eyes on the way out, when we were standing near a couple, one of whom kept asking questions about the plot while the other one explained what happened. The plot was *not* tricky. It was fast, but it wasn't tricky, and it was very direct. We also happened to be sitting next to a 'narrator', a person who felt compelled to describe the on-screen action to the person she was sitting with, who appeared capable of figuring that out himself. So, all that drove me a little crazy, but doesn't say much about the film, does it?

The film is not for those who are easily offended by swearing or violence. It is a violent movie, and many of the characters have potty-mouths. It didn't seem unwarranted given the storyline and context, but that's a warning for you.

The leads are played by Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Vera Farmiga. DiCaprio is the standout in the film. I've seen him in many things - I've always thought his baby-face makes him too young looking for the roles he plays, though his acting is always 'on'. Here, it seems his appearance has finally caught up, and he slips completely into his role as a cop working way undercover in Boston. Matt Damon is also good, and he's a completely unlikable character, which he pulls off well considering his usually likeable public persona. Jack Nicholson is - Jack Nicholson. He seems to be having a great time, as usual. Wahlberg and Sheen are fine in supporting roles and provide some of the (actual) comic relief. Farmiga, who I don't remember seeing before, holds her own in a movie that is otherwise entirely dominated by men. Really, she is virtually one of the only women you will see anywhere in the film.

Without wanting to give much away, I'm not sure what to do with the ending. It wasn't all-around gratifying, which I guess is OK, but I'm not sure I would have done it that way. In all, though, the plot was quick-paced and not predictable. I expect DiCaprio at least, and Scorsese, will be nominated for awards for this film. And if you like a thriller that has some brains to it, check out this movie.