"Movie Critiques"

Overview:

A common movie review is an opinion of the movies enjoyment level.  Was the plot captivating, were the characters believable, is the movie recommended and if so at what level?  Our time is valuable, movies prices always increase and the concessions are horribly expensive; so what we want to know before attending a movie is, is the movie worth going to?  Movie critics are allowed in to early releases so that they can review and post their reviews before the movie is released to our area.  Often we rely on movie critics to give a brief recap of the plot, actors and characters and to ultimately rate it with thumbs up or with a certain number of stars (like 4 out of 5 stars).  We take this information into account then make up our minds to go or to wait for it to come online or orderable at home.

A movie critique is a lot different than a movie review.  A movie critique can be done months or even years after the movie has been released. So the point of the movie critique is not to prevent or encourage a person to attend or not.  The point of the critique is to be done substantially long enough after people had many opportunities to watch the movie.  As a common experience that many of us shared because we all watched the same movie. At this point the critique makes sense to “compare notes” among viewers, did we notice the same things, did we notice the false statements, lies, did we notice the ironies, did we notice the same undertones, motivations, hidden influences and hidden agendas? 

A Christian movie critique is not necessarily a review of movies listed as Christian or not, but to review secular movies by using a Christian point of view whether or not the movie is purportedly about God or not.

Movies cost millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and distribute; it is an expensive gamble to see if the amount of sales exceed the expense. There are many hidden industry rules to ensure the profitability of the producer’s investment; factors like actors, plot, writing, editing, changing times (art imitates life), director, special effects, graphics, etc. There is a high success rate and the gamble has become low risk overall since many movies far exceed expenses.  For this reason movie making in the US is a world-wide art and an industry spending and making billions of dollars every year.  This doesn’t mean that the industry can be sloppy and any movie can make a profit, in fact the reliance and adherence to trademark criteria for industry rules ensures the profitability. 

For this reason it is by no accident when the writer, producer, director or editor adds or subtracts a line from the movie.  Every word is important, every tone is important, every emphasis is important; each word was purposely added in or edited out to make the desired impact or point; even if subtle, it was done with certain purpose.

Movies are a monolog; they are a one way conversation from the screen to the viewer.  The viewer cannot pause the movie, ask questions or ask for clarifications like a juror can.  The movie viewer has a passive role much like a person in a studio audience or at a lecture or a theatre play.  For this reason the person delivering the monolog cannot be questioned, rebutted, refuted, paused, challenged, contradicted or be forced to explain or defend their monolog.  Court trials are not monologs; everything said is available for review, clarification and rebuttal.

For these reasons in the following movie critiques, there will be much emphasis on the specific words used.  By critiquing the movie, I can pause it, point out the lies, refute the lies and point out the ironies; this cannot be done while the movie is playing only after it is done when we can think about what was said and why it was said.  I can share these insights with you, perhaps you caught and noticed the same lies and ironies that I noticed.  Let’s get started…

Changling 2008

Produced and directed by Clint Eastwood, actress Angelina Jolie, actor John Malkovich, a Universal Pictures, Imagine Entertainment, in association with Relativity Media, a Malpaso production.

The movie takes place in 1928 in LA.  A well to do single woman (Christine Collins) is raising her young son (Walter). One day he goes missing. The police halfheartedly look for him and many months go by.  During this time in the 1920’s the LA police are in a phase of incompetence, injustice, wrongful brutality and abuse of power.  A young boy is found several months later alive and abandoned; the police put the two cases together and say that are both solved.  The problem is that the boy found is not the mother’s son.  Not thwarted by these inconvenient facts the police insist that the mother is wrong and force the mother to take the boy and to announce to the newspapers that there are not two unsolved cases but one case that is solved. 

Not surprisingly, the mother keeps going back to the police and insisting that the case is not solved and that her son is still missing.  Secretly the police had coached the boy to say that this woman is his mother, so the boy is convincing.  This shows that the police really are corrupt.  The police become angered with the woman and put her into an asylum; the asylum is filled with other women who the police have forced to go there unjustly.

Eventually a different boy turns himself into the police and admits that his adult aged cousin is a serial abductor, kidnaper, torturer and murderer.  The boy admits that his cousin forced him to participate in the abductions, imprisonment, tortures and murders.  The boy takes the police to the murder site and they dig and discover the bodies of 20 young boys. 

Another boy who was held captive managed to escape and testified to the police.  The witness testifies that he and two of the young captives managed to escape, one of which is Walter.  The witness said that he had been caught in the fence and needed help escaping.  Walter had escaped the fence and started running away when he turned back and helped the witness get untangled from the fence.  The witness owes his life to the heroics and selfless actions of Walter; Walter is a hero.  It is unknown if Walter is still alive in hiding or if he was later caught again. 

Eventually the police arrest the murderer.  The police are in a fury because they now have to admit that Walter is still out there somewhere and that the boy claiming to be Walter is an imposter arranged by the police and that the police falsely accused and detained Christine to the asylum.

The killer gets a two year sentence in solitary confinement followed by the death sentence, death by hanging.  So far this is just the plot, there is no critique yet.  Any two people who have seen the same movie would have recalled it just like I have. 

Here is where the critique begins.

The movie up to this point is complete, sound, strong, compelling, thrilling, astonishing and interesting.  There is no need to add anything else to it.  Or is there?  The writers and producers decided to add more.  This is what they added.  The serial killer during his two years of confinement decided to talk to a Priest to have his sins forgiven.  As a forgiven person he “remained good” leading up to the end of his two years until the day before his execution.  On the day before his execution he invited Christine to confess/admit that he murdered Walter. 

Upon seeing Christine in person, he chickened out and was unable to tell her the truth that he murdered Walter.  Rather than to tell the truth, he was compelled to lie and to say that he did not murder Walter.  Rather than to lie he said nothing, he did not answer her questions whether the truth or a lie for he was afraid that to utter a lie so close to death would be unforgiveable and that his forgiveness would have ended and that he would go to hell for there was “not enough time to ask the priest for forgiveness again and to be good all over again” a second time all before the death sentence is carried out.

So the Christian Critique is, “Why was this added?”  Who added this and why did they find it so important to add it?  Most movies run 1 hour and 30 minutes, the movie was complete at 90 minutes, but by adding the Mocking, 40 minutes were added to the movie. The movie stood on its own, this did not need to be added; someone had an important agenda to spitefully add this misunderstanding and mocking of Christianity.  In the movie monolog there is no opportunity, no interaction to point out the lies, misinterpretations and mocking that the writers and producers added.

Here is the cross examination that was not afforded to us since the movie is a monolog, however in a critique we can cross examine.  Mr. Eastwood (collectively referred to as Director and Producer Clint Eastwood; Writer J. Michael Straczynski; Producers Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Robert Lorenz; Executive Producers Tim Moore and Jim Whitaker; and Editors Joel Cox and Gary D. Roach), whoever tried to explain Christianity to you failed.  You failed because you did not ask a Christian about Christianity.  To know Christianity you need to ask a Christian, you asked someone else.  Perhaps this consultant seemed to have impressive credentials, like in Biblical studies, Hebrew studies, Religion, Theology or the like, but evidently this person is clearly not a Christian, but may be familiar with Christian speak. 

On the other-hand perhaps you did consult a Christian and he/she clearly explained it to you, but in your confused mind you edited and rearranged what they said in order to get it wrong, because you reject God.  Perhaps it can be traced back to your childhood.  What were your parents like; were they abusive to you?  Was your father figure abusive to your mother; was he an alcoholic? Did your father abandon you and your mother like in the movie?  Did they neglect you, were you raised in solitude?  Did they regularly yell at you and tell you that you are a mistimed mistake?  Was your father distant, detached and devoid of feelings?  Did you feel that your father never loved you, that you could not relate to your father?  With this upbringing did you blame your father for being a failure or did you blame God for being a failure?  So now you are a big man, so now you can exact revenge with using your big credentials, now you make movies and add scenes that mock God.  Wow, impressive.  I am not impressed, I feel sorry for you; perhaps your parents were right after all.  You use your talents to be vindictive, petty and spiteful, all of which are indicators of the childhood mentioned above.

Mr. Eastwood, you surrounded yourself with other bitter people who had similar parents.  Your friends, producers, other directors and actors all bitter at their parents but who shift the blame to God instead; wow big man!  I don’t see you as a man at all; I see you for what you are: a hurt young boy in need of a Dad.  Some young boys who grew up in broken homes turn to gangs to seek the approval of older males to fill the hole in their heart, you bottled it up and waited until you were in a position to lash out; wow big man or little boy?

Mr. Eastwood why do celebrities think that their opinions on religion and or politics is any better than someone else’s?  Is there something special about celebrities that make their opinions better than other peoples’?  Just because someone is better at acting, what makes them an expert in something that they know nothing about?  Your only qualification is that either you misunderstood what a Christian told you or you paid for a secular consultant who could speak christianese, either of which makes you wholly misinformed, but that didn’t stop you.  If you want to learn about biology then ask a biologist, not a pianist; if you want to know about Christianity; then ask a Christian, not a secularist.  You should stick to acting; you are not a smart man outside of your field.

Let’s try again, this time from a Christian, not from a so-called expert in christianese.  Gather your bitter friends around and read this.  The point that you were wrong about:  When a person is aware that the Creator God of the Bible is real and genuine and that the Bible is God’s Word for us to know Him and that the Bible says that we have sins and that these sins need to be forgiven before we die, then we ask God for the forgiveness of our sins.  We ask God, God the Father or Jesus the Son for the forgiveness of our sins against them.  We do not ask a person with a white collar to forgive our sins instead!  It is asked one time and it is granted one time. 

When this happens then we change from an un-forgiven person to a forgiven person. All past sins and all future sins are forgiven.  The theological term for this is Righteous and Justified.  Once we are forgiven then we do not revert back to un-forgiven then become forgiven then revert back.  Once we are in the forgiven state, we will have new sins, we will not become sinless, never sinning again.

When we are in the forgiven state, when we sin again from bad choices, temptations, weaknesses, bad influences, etc. these new and all future sins are also forgiven too.  The new sins do not put us back to the un-forgiven state. Once we are in the forgiven state, then any new sins causes us to feel sorrow and we ask for strength in the areas that we are weak in (we do not re-ask for forgiveness), the theological term for us in the forgiven state is Sanctified. 

You and your expert consultants got these points completely wrong and I noticed.  Do you now notice the difference even after I explained it to you or do you still not get it?  Are you really so smart or are you just a dullard reading lines that your writer gave you?  Do you comprehend the lines that you just read or do you just read them like some who comprehends them but who adds in tone fluctuations and head and hand gestures?  In your movie the writer made the killer say, “If I sin again there may not be time to re-ask the Priest for forgiveness then to be good before dying, so I will not lie and will not cause a new sin.”  Do you have the intellect to get it now, was I clear enough, did you comprehend what I said?

If you comprehend what I said, then I will see it in your next movie or press release.  If you do not comprehend Christianity, then your next movie will contain more mocking, poor writing and hidden agendas from a simpleton actor turned big time director and producer who spouts-off ill conceived religious opinions from Christianese, pagan, secular consultants.

Rated “M” for Mocking and Misinformed

As a critique, there is no need for a rating like thumbs or stars like with a review, but it just too tempting, so this is rated “M” for Mocking, Ignorant and Misinformed by a little boy hurt by a domineering and abusive father figure who grew up in a broken home, who pointed his anger at God rather than to blame his human perpetrators for what they did to him.

As a Shared Experience

The main reason for this kind of Critique is to see if anyone else noticed the same things that I noticed.  I admit that it is difficult at first to notice these things during a movie.  A movie is a fast paced monologue.  Movies are something that we choose to see for our entertainment, so our guards are down.  As such movies can take advantage of this opportunity and deliver disturbing monologs and get away with it since it is surrounded by a plot that takes your main focus.

If you take a movie and strip out its action, adventure, actors and plot; you are left with just the monolog.

As far as a monolog goes, imagine if you are in line at the DMV and the person behind you delivers the same monolog: “Well you know all Christians are hypocrites because some of them are worse than non Christians; I know so many GOOOOOD people who are NOT Christian, I like them much more than any Christian.  Those Christians think they are so much better than everyone else.  I just don’t get it; who do they think they are?  Blah, blah, and on and on…”  This is a monolog without the movie! 

We wouldn’t put up with this kind of monolog at the DMV, but when we go to a movie or a play or an opera, we stay and listen because the main focus draws us in and keeps us there despite what is being said.  This is called the “hook”; the hook overrides our better judgment that we should NOT go to the event because of the secular mocking that is expected to take place.  The hook also overrides our want to walk out of the event when we are insulted by the mocking. 

The director and producers are aware of this and they willfully calculate the amount of mocking that can take place before upsetting the balance of the hook.  If the balance is not set right then people will not purchase tickets or they might walk out during the event. 

This is part of the shared experience, we knew the hook of mocking may be present when we purchased tickets; we are familiar with past works by the actor, director and producer, we have read reviews and listened to other family and friends who went to the event ahead of us.  Once the event begins it would have to take a lot of mocking to get us uncomfortable enough to walk out and to get our money back.  The hook is a delicate balance, a calculated risk, a lot of thought went into it. 

As a shared experience what was the hook for you?  Did you notice the mocking outlined above?  Did it make you uncomfortable?  How uncomfortable did you feel?  Did the other members of your group notice any of this, if so, what did they notice?