Month: November 2009

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too

CRANESCranes Are Flying: I fear this 1957 award winner was the only movie of substance I managed to watch this month. (I’ve been too busy catching up on Castle, I’m afraid. It’s no Firefly, but this detective show will definitely do. I liken the experience to visiting your local grocery only to discover they are out of your favorite Ben and Jerry’s flavor and being “forced” to buy your second choice. It’s not New York Super Fudge Chunk but it will certainly hit the spot.) But if you are only going to watch one foreign film a month, this should definitely be one of them. Set in Moscow at the outset of World War II, Cranes are Flying is breathtaking in its simple tragedy. Weaving the story of star-crossed lovers Veronika and Boris with the national story of Russia during the war, it is poignant without being melodramatic. One can’t help but wonder if this seemingly patriotic film had a deeper message of the tragedy of life under communist rule. The final scene is a bit propagandistic but doesn’t defeat the overall beauty of this classic.

UGLYThe Ugly Truth: Ugh. I am not sure I have much more to say about this film. How can a movie with Katherine Heigl, whom I appreciate for her no-holds-barred approach to comedic acting, and Gerard Butler, whom I just love to watch, be bad? Poor direction, muddled logic, and bad writing, for starters. Take my advice and go watch The Proposal again. Or better yet, go check out some classic romantic comedies made during a time when people knew how to respect both love and comedy. Here are just a few of my faves:  Pillow Talk, That Touch of Mink, and It Happened One Night.  

WHATEVERWhatever Works: Whatever works, it certainly isn’t Woody Allen’s latest movie. Starring Larry David, one of my all-time favorite cynical innocents, this film fails on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. I don’t know why I keep punishing myself by continuing to dream the impossible dream, which is that Allen will come to his aesthetic senses and start making real art again. The irony of this film is that unlike some of his more recent offerings such as Match Point and Cassandra’s Dream, it has a happy ending; and that’s the problem. There is no longer any tension in Allen’s filmmaking, no struggle to understand the meaning of it all. I guess the title sums up his shoulder-shrugging resignation to the meaninglessness of life. And I don’t think I’m just bitter over his shallow depiction of southerners and Christians (each of whom is either moronic, hypocritical, repressed, or all of the above).

JAPJapanese Story: Perhaps I was mistaken earlier when I said I had watched only one film of substance this month. A more correct statement might be that I watched only substantive film that I liked this month. There are some movies that I dislike because they are flawed in some way that makes them ultimately self-defeating as art. In these cases, I can point to particulars that lead me to discredit, disparage or simply “dis” the movie and its makers. Others evoke such strong emotional responses that it is difficult for me to determine whether the movie is of poor quality or I just don’t like it. Japanese Story is one such film. The acting is good (it stars Toni Collette, so the quality her performance goes without saying), and the writing isn’t bad.  Nevertheless, this was not an enjoyable viewing experience. I am certainly able to appreciate movies in which the characters share a different moral perspective than I, if that perspective is truthful in its presentation. So my distaste isn’t entirely due to a conflict of worldview. Actually, the film seemed to have no moral perspective at all, and perhaps this is what bothered me. All I can say is that at the end of the movie I thought, “Well, that was a waste of time.” After all, I could have been watching Castle.

Posted on

Plato, Calvin, and Internet Anonymity

By Jim Spiegel

It is a sad fact about the Internet that thoughtful news commentaries and blog posts are often appended with strings of comments that degenerate into hostility, name-calling, or obscene language.  Lately, I have encountered more of these than usual (not on this blog, thankfully), and it makes me wonder what happened to mutual respect and good manners in public debate.  Evidently, in the minds of some people these days, the Internet put an end to that.

Like many aspects of contemporary life, this got me to thinking about Plato, specifically a famous passage in his Republic.  In Book II, a character named Glaucon relates a story of a shepherd named Gyges who discovers a ring which has the power to make him invisible.  Realizing the potency of his new possession, Gyges uses it to seduce the queen and murder the king, thus establishing himself as the new ruler.  Yet, prior to discovering the ring, Gyges was a rather ordinary guy, a humble shepherd who worked hard for his pay and never hurt anyone.  Glaucon’s point is that the only reason Gyges behaved himself was to avoid reprisal.  He obeyed the laws because he feared he’d get caught and punished if he disobeyed.  So when he happened upon a means to avoid such consequences, he exploited it to the extreme.  Furthermore, Glaucon suggests that all of us are like Gyges.  The only reason we act morally—to the extent that we do so, that is—is because we are compelled by the laws governing society.  The truth is, says Glaucon, we are immoral by nature, and if any of us had the Ring of Gyges, we’d act no differently than that ordinary shepherd.  Under the cloak of invisibility, even the most righteous would prove their perversity by stealing and snooping, if not seducing and killing just like Gyges.

As a Calvinist, I wholly affirm the doctrine of total depravity, and I consider Plato’s myth to be profoundly insightful (as did J.R.R. Tolkien, whose Lord of the Ringsseries was inspired in part by Plato’s story).  Though I think Glaucon goes too far in suggesting that given the power of invisibility everyone of us would succumb to such extreme temptations, I do think many folks “fake it” and act morally only because, as Glaucon suggests, they fear the consequences of detection.  In a strange way, the internet confirms this truth, as so many people are willing to ditch all decorum when posting comments on various websites.  When I read such hostile or abusive language I think, “Who are these people?” (Naturally, they never identify themselves.)  Well, they are no doubt the same people I encounter every day—at the store, on the street, perhaps even in the classroom.  In public (presumably) they behave themselves, but on-line they acquire a limited form of Ring of Gyges.  And while invisible in that domain, they let their true moral colors show.

They say you can judge a person’s character by how they handle themselves in small matters.  If that is true, and anonymous comments on websites are any indication, then there appear to be a lot of bad characters out there.  Old Glaucon had a point.  On the other hand, lest I sound like a moral pessimist (some would say all of us Calvinists are), most people do behave themselves on-line, even while “wearing” the electronic Ring of Gyges—restraining themselves and managing a respectful tone when making comments.  Is this a falsification of Glaucon’s thesis?  Perhaps.  But then again, maybe not.  This might actually serve to further confirm Glaucon’s point, since (at least many of) these same people might behave themselves out of fear divine reprisal.  After all, the internet cloak of invisibility doesn’t obscure God’s view.

Of course, we will never know how many of us are motivated out of a desire to please (or not to displease) God.  But Scripture does clearly and emphatically teach both that God knows all things and that he will judge all of our actions, words, and even thoughts.  For example, we are told that “God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:13; see also 2 Cor. 5:10).

So let’s keep this in mind as we post comments on websites, particularly when we find someone’s opinion disagreeable or even repugnant.  Ultimately speaking, there is no anonymity.  And no one is ever really invisible.

Comments anyone?   🙂

Posted on

If I Could Turn Back Time

By Amy Spiegel

Next month will mark a milestone birthday for me. I have approached the midway point between 30 and the big 4-0, and many moons have passed since dictates of Western culture have deemed it appropriate for me to meet birthdays with anything but sackcloth and ashes. While I regret this attitude towards aging (I prefer to think of it as ripening, like fine wine or really good cheese), as another anniversary of my birth approaches I have taken the opportunity to take stock of my time on earth thus far. So, rather than keep my failures and regrets to myself, I thought I would share a bit of my wisdom…and folly. Hopefully you can either relate to the errors of my ways or, even better, learn from my missteps. Without further ado, here are eight things I wish I had done differently.

#8—I wish I had had better taste in men—or boys, really—in high school. Better yet, I wish I had not sampled that particular dish at all until the opposite sex was given a bit more time to “ripen.” As the mother of three boys and the wife of a great man, I hate to say it but most males under the age of 25 are like tadpoles, not really hatchlings but most definitely not yet frogs. Also, I knew some great gals in my early years, and I wish had given them more of my attention.

#7—I wish I had taken my studies in college more seriously and given more thought to what I enjoyed learning about. When else in your life do you get to hang out with such learned people whose express purpose is to help you to become learned as well? Luckily, I am married to one of them so all is not lost.

#6—I wish I had figured out earlier how wise my parents are. It would have saved a great deal of trouble for me and many sleepless nights for them. I know it’s a cliché but it’s true. Hopefully I am making it up to them now.

#5—I wish I hadn’t confused politeness and kindness. Recently, I have realized the damaging effects of not speaking your mind and being up front with others. If nothing else, it often leads to gossip when, out of a desire not to give offense, you “speak your mind” to someone completely unrelated to the situation. I have learned that it’s better to ruffle a few feathers than to stab the bird in the back, so to speak.

#4—I wish I had said “no” to the tattoo. Nothing more needs to be said on this subject.

#3—I wish I had figured out earlier that being morally good and being interesting are not mutually exclusive. Thank goodness I met my husband who dispelled this myth but a lot of morally upright and fascinating people passed me by before he came along.

#2—I wish I had learned to balance my check book at 20 rather than 30. It’s only money, but the daughter of a banker should know better.

#1—I wish I had thought more about what I should be doing than what I wished to be doing. I have never been happier than when I was doing the former and never more miserable than when pursuing the latter. Getting older may have given me a few more wrinkles and slowed my metabolism a bit, but my experience has also taught me to be less selfish and more eternally minded. So this year, when I see all those candles burning on my birthday cake of choice (chocolate cake with marshmallow frosting, since you asked), I will choose to see marks of maturity rather than the fires of doom. The old grey mare may not be what she used to be, but that may not be such a bad thing after all.

Posted on

Wolf at the Door

By Jim Spiegel

On Monday Anita Dunn stepped down from her position as White House communications director—the culmination of recent controversy over her remarks that Chairman Mao was one of her “favorite political philosophers.”  Two DUNNmonths ago, Obama’s so called “Green Jobs Czar,” Van Jones, resigned from his post following furor over his sympathies with Marxism.  Fox News, more particularly conservative JONEScommentator Glenn Beck, led the charge in exposing the Marxist stripes of these two Obama appointees.  And it has been interesting to observe how among other media sources more attention has been given to Fox’s “outing” of these two Marxist sympathizers than to the fact they were in the Obama administration in the first place. 

How many other Obama appointees have Marxist convictions?  And what are we to think of the President himself in light of this, especially given the fact that he has had numerous other Marxist associates throughout his career, including his early mentor, Frank Marshall Davis?

It wasn’t long ago that public figures avoided any linkage to Marxism, whether or not they actually subscribed to the principles of this foolish and oppressive ideology.  Even in the days of McCarthyism it was generally agreed that the Reds were evil.  The controversy concerned Joe McCarthy’s tactics, not his concern to root out communists from the U.S. Federal government.

It wasn’t long ago that nearly all U.S. citizens agreed that Marxism fundamentally opposes the American system of government and recognized that to the extent that socialist ideals are taken seriously by those in power our basic constitutional rights are threatened.  Indeed, the very fact that we have a Constitution which guarantees the freedoms it does seemed to be a reliable firewall against Marxist infiltration.

And it wasn’t long ago that the Marxist belief in the necessity of government force to institute a classless society seemed either innocuously ensconced in the pages of The Communist Manifesto or, practically speaking, restricted to distant lands from which we are safely buffered by both great oceans and great moral wisdom.

But things have changed, and a political destiny that was once so unthinkable in our country now seems a distinct possibility.  Fellow lambs of constitutional polity take note.  The Marxist wolf is at the door.

Posted on

Don’t Judge the Candy by the Wrapper

By Amy Spiegel

Halloween has come and gone and all the kids’ weeks of planning out their costumes have been rewarded with a large bowl of candy, filled to overflowing and sitting in our pantry. I have noticed that there is a distinct hierarchy among these confectionary treats, with the miniature candy bars reigning over the noble class of Starbursts and gummy snacks, which in turn lord it over the bottom rung of suckers and Tootsie Rolls. As an act of compassion, I often rescue a downtrodden Reese’s Cup and show it the respect it deserves. Whether it is a part of our Imago Dei desiring order or our fleshly nature wanting to value one thing at the expense of another, it does seem ubiquitous in human experience. Of course, as we get older, our criteria for discrimination move beyond candy wrappers and sugar content and focus more on skin color and socio-economic status. Not that most of us would actually say, “Pardon me but I felt compelled to tell you that I am choosing not to be your friend and that this choice is based primarily on your financial bracket and the color of your skin.” But we might as well, as we segregate ourselves into neatly divided neighborhoods and social groups.

51tKABH4JXL._SL500_AA240_This past week I finished reading a book about the power that is unleashed when we choose to look past our differences and extend the hand of friendship to those with whom we seem to have nothing in common. Same Kind of Different as Me by Ron Hall and Denver Moore is one of the most moving and honest books I have read in a long time. A chronicle of how a homeless black man from the deep South becomes friends with an international art dealer, Hall and Moore tell their story with refreshing honesty and humility. I don’t want to say anything else about the book other than that you should read it.

Too often in life, we look at people like they are a piece of candy in the big bowl of humanity. As we pick and choose our friends and associates, we tend to go for the familiar and comfortable. What I like about Same Kind of Different as Me is that it doesn’t present the idea of making friendships across economic and racial divides as some sort of social experiment. It doesn’t put broccoli in the bowl and say “Now kids, we know it isn’t pleasant but hold your nose, chew and swallow.” Rather it is more like chocolate-covered broccoli, if you will. Moore’s and Hall’s relationship, though a great source of joy and comfort for them both, stretches them as well. To use a different analogy, a spoon full of sugar may help the medicine go down but that doesn’t mean you don’t taste the medicine. In the same way, at times, both men act out a sense of what they think is right even if their lesser instincts tell them to duck and cover. The depth of their relationship is a result of both the organic connection that develops over time and the conscious decisions they make along the way. One of my favorite parts of the book is when, speaking of Moore, Hall simply says “I had come to consider him my brother.” Moore expresses his commitment and love in acts of great compassion and devotion which I am sure will move you deeply.

So when you are picking through the treat bowl this post-Halloween season, don’t just look to the familiar metaphoric Twix bar. Give the fruity tootsie roll a try. You just might find, as Hall and Moore did, a new and unexpected source of great and lasting joy.