The Rabbit Room

I want to see this movie so bad but i got nobody to go with me right now… i hate going to movies alone…

If we are to be any different from the world how can we go to and promote films like this? Promoting violence and people like Tarantino seems to go against what we are called to be as Jesus followers, aka Christians. Hollywood has duped us and we are no different from the world as we flock to the theaters to support more senseless movies from people who do not believe in God, but instead make fun of and mock our Creator. We should be ashamed.

Where do we draw the line on what we will allow ourselves to buy into? Will the Rabbit Room be reviewing the next Friday the 13th movie or the next Saw movie?

I love movies as much as anyone, but I will not allow myself to be desensitized and watch what the world considers worthy of accolades and praise.

We are not of this world, we are citizens and representatives of heaven and Christ himself.

Thomas,
I had written this one off as a ‘no-go’ but you’ve got me intrigued. Thanks for posting. Can you elaborate on what you mean by ‘the redemptive power of violence’?

This is a pretty amazing movie. Tarantino is so talented at using the art of film that it’s unnerving. No where near as violent as I was afraid it would be either, it’s actually pretty tame, especially by Kill Bill standards.

“more senseless movies from people who do not believe in God”

This movie is anything but senseless, it’s full of food for thought, and while I don’t know anything about Tarantino’s personal beliefs, I don’t know why you’d say he doesn’t believe in God. Have you seen Pulp Fiction? It’s almost a parable, albeit not one that everyone is equipped to grapple with.

To review Thomas’ review, I liked this bit a lot:

”It will make you think, it’ll make you question, and struggle, and that’s kind of what art’s supposed to do from what I understand.”

Ok I’m not sure of Tarantino’s personal beliefs, but violence, sex, drugs and vulgar language rule his films. What is one to think? I appreciate the open discussions in the RR and a place to find and share things. What I don’t understand is the things that conflict with the standards, values and morals we are called to as Christ followers.

Will anyone choose to stand up for what is righteous and true? Or will we follow the pop icons of our culture wherever they blindly lead us?

Paul – maybe the reason you don’t understand “the things that conflict with the standards, values and morals we are called to as Christ followers” is because you might shelter yourself from these things? How can you truly stand up for what is righteous and true if you don’t understand what “the other side” of the story is?

Don’t want to be argumentative – it’s just that I feel strongly Christians should not put up walls (in this case, for lack of a better term – ” a pop culture wall”) around us.

If I ever get to see a movie again (hard to go with 2 young kiddos in the house), this one is on my list. Thanks for the review (which – BTW – I challenge Mr. McKenzie to do the 1-minute review in one minute!!!).

JM

I’m standing up for the righteousness and truth in our culture. It so happens that there’s quite a lot of both in tarantino’s films.

I am thankful for these discussions because I think they are healthy for us. After all, they have been going on since the beginning of the church according to Scripture. What is permissable for us as Christians? How do we determine this? What about the Holy Spirit? I think these are very important questions.

I was reminded of a passage of Scripture many of you are familiar with in Romans. The Message version blew me over today as I was pondering this post.

“Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do. And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with- even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. For instance, a person who has been around for a while might be well convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume all Christians should be vegetarians and eat accordingly. But since both are guests at Christ’s table, wouldn’t it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn’t eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God’s welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help”. Romans 14:1-4

This is not to say we don’t need to discuss things, just that we can take comfort in the fact that Christ in us will ultimately guide us in the way of truth. He has been doing it with believers for generation upon generation as we wrestle with what it means to live in our culture.

It is entirely possible in my view that the Holy Spirit could convict someone not to see this movie, and someone else could see it and be challenged and moved. Thought I haven’t seen this film I have walked away from films like 25th Hour and Rachel Getting Married with R ratings that have had a profound effect on me. I don’t know where the line is, I don’t know that there is an answer. But I do trust the Holy Spirit and know that He will convict and guide each of us as we attempt to make wise decisions about our lives and actions.

Ok, obviously we disagree and that’s fine. I am not trying to be self righteous or point out anyone’s flaws..I’ve got enough of my own.

Before I came to Christ I saw many of Tarantino’s films (Res Dogs, Pulp Fiction). I do remember alot of violence etc., which is why I feel like the review was overlooking the violence /language and still saying it was ‘Terrific”. I understand violence is a part of our world. Maybe I’m just surprised to see a review for this film on the RR. Obviously it has started a great dialogue!

Maybe it was being a youth pastor for a couple years that has made me want to warn people of the seduction of the world? Or recently becoming a father?

So maybe I’m wrong to say things like I did, sorry! I really love the RR and all the great articles, reviews and insight. So let’s agree to disagree. No hard feelings?

Certainly no hard feelings here.

“Christian rabbits.” I love it.

Haven’t ever seen a Tarantino film, but I found The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed on it (“‘Inglourious Basterds’ and the Problem of Revenge”) very interesting.

Hey all,

Oh, so much to say.

First I want to say how grateful I am for this opportunity to share my passion for film with fellow Christian Rabbits. It is an honor for me. That said, I alone choose what I’m going to review as part of my long series of “one minute reviews.” And I’m saying what I think, not making a statement about what the Rabbit Room or Andrew or anyone else thinks. Andrew and I have not spoken about this particular film, and I didn’t even tell him I would be reviewing it. So all the responsibility is mine.

Second, I accept the challenge of making a one minute review that is one minute long. I just completed one for the Robert Rodriguez film “Shorts.” I don’t want to overwhelm the Rabbit Room with two reviews in the same week, so you can find it here: http://vimeo.com/6248203 I think of “One Minute” as more of a metaphor for frenetic brevity.

Next I’m going to make a statement about how I would like to relate to art. I would not criticize a film I have not seen. In order to speak intelligently about a specific film, book, painting, play, or any other piece of art, I feel I must engage it. One might say “I won’t see that film because I hear it is terrible, or I don’t like that kind of thing,” and I think that is fine. For instance, I will not see “Halloween II” because I don’t like horror movies as a general rule. They bother me, make me feel sick, and don’t usually give me anything redemptive to think about. But I’m not going to launch into a specific criticism of that film unless I have seen it.

This goes to the characterization of Inglorious Basterds that I have seen here and other places, vis-a-vis “sex, drugs, foul language, and violence.” This film has a single “sex moment” that has no nudity and lasts about one second. There are no drugs in this film, unless one is counting nicotine and alcohol. The language in this film is rated R, but foul language is not an issue I would hone in on for this one. After all, a great deal of this film isn’t even in English. Is there violence in this film, yes there is.

However, there is much less violence in this film than in, say, the book of Genesis. No wholesale slaughter of villages. No drowning of armies in the Red Sea. No butchering of recently circumcised men. No death of first born sons. Heck, no destruction of almost every living thing on the planet in a Great Flood even. If you don’t like sex, violence, alcohol, or bad language I would recommend staying out of the Bible.

OK, “redemptive power of violence.” I used that phrase because this is the theme that the film is really bringing up. Can violence lead to healing? Does vengeance bring about positive change? Would it be better to have horrible violence inflected on our enemies and, therefore, bring a war to a swift conclusion?

The questions the film raises are similar to the ones raised in millions of other places. In many ways, this is like Dick Cheney’s “we’re going to the dark side” comments and the torture that followed. This is like the Karate Kid, in which vindication and redemption comes through kicking someone in the face really hard. This is dropping the Bomb on Japan in 1945. This is Israel’s invasion of Gaza. If you have been wronged, is it morally good to “kill ‘em all”?

The entire film asks these questions, but especially the climactic theater scene, as played against the scenes with the opposing leaders (no spoilers there, but those who have seen it know what I mean). Is that right? Is that good? Is that what we would rather have?

I think these are great questions for Christians to struggle with and discuss. And talking these in a film is less potentially destructive than talking about them in current politics or religion or in your family dynamic. This film gives us a point of conversation which allows us to look at our assumptions, our emotions, in a different way. And that is what art, at its best, does for us.

OK, those are some more of my thoughts. For some other thoughts from a good friend of mine and fellow pastor, let me recommend http://robertpelfrey.blogspot.com/2009/08/confessions-of-ex-inglourious-basterd.html

Based on your reviews, I see “One Minute” as a bare-faced metaphor for four minutes (snicker).

Paul: Your concerns are not wrong in and of themselves. There is a tension, a push-pull in the body; truth is almost always paradoxical. What is OK for one person may not be so for another. We can’t take this too far, of course. To push it to ludicrous lengths and show a line, pornography is never ok.

But there isn’t a black and white here. For myself personally, I don’t do television. I hate the frenetic nature of it, the lack of peace, the advertising that tries to create demand for useless things or food with no nutritional value. I have high sensitivities; my mind gets thrown around fairly easily. I do watch movies. Sometimes these are violent, like The Matrix (one of my favorites). When I do watch one, I usually want some kind of truth-food in story form, something that makes me respond and think and feel and consider worlds beyond my own thinking. So I look for truth, and most of the time I find it. I used to watch movies and look for anti-Christian bias, and found plenty. But God has His ways of putting truth out there; people, not just believers but all people, have a built-in mechanism that responds to truths, principles, laws, whatever we want to call them. Everyone is hungry for it. That’s why story is so powerful.

Your concerns are the same as those of A.W. Tozer and other great Christian saints of the past – totally understandable. But we have to ask ourselves, how can we relate to the people within the culture if we have no understanding of it? This is where I feel I’m at sometimes, due to no television. I listen to mostly old music, live out in the country with my wife, kids, horses, and sometimes feel disconnected from the way most people think. That’s healthy in one sense – personally – but unhealthy in another sense – inter-personally (which, of course, is unhealthy personally..but I digress…).

The answer is that the lines will be different for different believers.

While I won’t be seeing this film, I can think off the top of my head of two very tense R-rated films that moved me: “Blade Runner” and “Blue Velvet.” I won’t recommend them, since both are quite dark in places (especially “Blue Velvet,” by David Lynch). Still, each of them would make any top-10 list I would make of favorite movies, and Blade Runner would likely be #1 (the redemptive image in its climax far outshone “The Matrix,” IMHO).

It isn’t easy to know where to draw lines. We can draw them too far out, because we like a certain genre; or draw them too close because of past experience. It isn’t always fear; it may be, as I think it is for Paul, a “been there, done that” thing. Finding the place between shunning and embracing a disturbed and disturbing reality ain’t easy. But, for me, reviews like Thomas’ are a help, where films are concerned. I have a clear idea of what to expect and of what might impress or offend me.

I thank my dear brother, Thomas, for his review and for the link at the end of his comments. For most of my feelings on the matter one can follow that link. I will add here, however, that this movie is just the kind of art that can be a healthy jumping off point for dialogue with others about the nature of eschatalogical faith vs. taking matters into our own hands, violent vs. passive resistance, war vs. peace, etc.

This movie serves that function because it is good art–technically, aesthetically, etc. I’m sad to say that I find this a better jumping off point than most Christian best-sellers and, especially, what is marketed as Christian film. Maybe quality, challenging art like Tarantino’s films will help Christian artists raise their game. But we have to encounter that art first.

I’m a movie buff. Tarantino is interesting, because he toes the line with what I’m fine seeing and what I feel I would be better off without. I agree that Pulp Fiction was brilliant… but if I never see it again, I’m good with that.

I do think there is a balance between Paul’s bit on “all things to all men” (I Cor 9) for cultural connection and his words to Timothy (I Tim 5), “…and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.”

At the end of the day, I’d probably land on Thomas’ side of this, but I think Paul’s question is a really good one.

Movies provide me an opportunity to “participate in the sins of others” more than anything I can think of offhand and I should be more careful with that.

For me, the final message of something really does make a huge difference, example:

3:10 to Yuma (recent version): I think the central message is about the notion of ‘Honor your father and mother’ – and that this can be the difference between a life of nobility and a life of evil. That whole last scene was about the perception of the boy as it related to his father.

I think Russell Crowe’s character saw himself in the boy and did what he did to give him a chance at something else.

There Will Be Blood: I don’t know what this would be, beyond, “it is possible for man to go to a really dark and evil place, and never come out again.” The whole “I’m finished!” line – and yeah, he was finished. I don’t need to see that, I really don’t.

Violence in both films, but I bought the 3:10 DVD so I could watch it again and for Blood, I actually offered people who mentioned it to me $10 to go see something else.

But I don’t know what to say. In my own head, the difference between those two films is Really clear. One is redemptive to me, the other just isn’t.

I don’t know that I would even say to someone who liked There Will Be Blood that they were out to lunch, the film was well made.

The question I’m fuzzy on, is when should I actively become counter-cultural in terms of what I go and see and support? I don’t think Tarantino is pornography, but I’m not sure he is good for me either.

I agree with Paul. I believe we need to have higher standards as christians and we have to stop looking for deep meaning in worldy trash.
I kind of feel that the approach that is taken by many is the ” I drink so that I can be the example of a responsible drinker” approach.
In reality you drink because you want to and you watch these movies because you want to.

Ron B:

Does that mean we are to participate in everything our culture does in order to understand it? I think we can relate to our culture and still understand what others are trying to say without participating ourselves in everything they do. We can still see movies, but make a choice in what we watch.

The thing is all of Tarantino’s movie are very violent and over the top. Sure we could say that there is redemption in the movie or good vs evil, but the cost is ultra-gore. I don’t need to see a movie to understand the revenge many Jews would like to have on the Nazi’s.

We as Christians really have a target on us as the world watches every move we make. The world already thinks “Christians” are hypocrites, so how can we change their view if we do everything they do. We need to be a light in the darkness, not add fuel to the fire. Yes violence is a reality, but I don’t think glorifying it is the answer.

You are right to say the lines are different for other believers. We all must wrestle with freewill and decisions.

I agree with Paul. We need to set higher standards for ourselves as Christians, and not look for deeper meaning in worldly trash.
The stand taken by many seems to liken “I drink so that I can be the example of an responsible drinker” approach.
Truth is they drink because they want to, and these movies get watched even by Christians, simply because you want to.
“Deeper meaning” is just an excuse.

I like to drink mainly just because beer is tasty

“The world already thinks “Christians” are hypocrites, so how can we change their view if we do everything they do.”

I can’t really speak for ‘the world” but I think “the world” generally sees hypocrisy in Christians primarily because Christendom, in our country especially, has done a very poor job of communicating and living out the gospel for the last few hundred years, not because some Christians went to see a great work of art and congratulated its creator on a job well done.

To further complicate this conversation (which I see as having some merit on both sides –translation: I’m not diving in) there is the perspective of those who do not think all movies with gratuitous visual violence for entertainment purposes and “bad language” are wrong, but think this movie still fails the test.

I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know.

But Jeff Overstreet has and I think he did not approve:

http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/must-read-movie-review-daniel-mendelsohn-inglourious-basterds-when-jews-attack/

We should have higher standards as believers in Christ, but higher standards are not an end in themselves. If those standards are set up just so they will be higher, then I’m not for it. I don’t act different from the pagan so that I will act different, I act different because Christ compels me and the Word teaches me so. A large part of the image we have presented to the world is because we have withdrawn from things that are not unlawful in an effort to distance ourselves from the world. I would say beer is one of those things. I do drink beer because I love it, because it is not forbidden by Scripture, and that’s as far as I can go with that one.

I would be interested to hear more on the “finding truth in media” philosophy. Particularly, maybe in a post, I would like to see the notion explained more, with maybe some pointers on how to choose some and weed out other movies or books. How much truth are we looking for here? Because don’t all movies have some real truth in them? How much truth makes violence or nudity or language, or maybe even just plain bad acting worth suffering through? What kind of truth are we talking about? Obviously Christian truth, or just general truth in general, generally?

I don’t think it’s fair by any stretch of the imagination to say that “deeper meaning is just an excuse”. That is simply not true. Like Thomas pointed out earlier, the bible is full of those things and it shows how God works through even the most terrible of circumstances to bring about ultimate redemption. And even though most film makers aren’t setting out to show God working redemption through terrible circumstances, they still accidentally do just that from time to time.

I see creativity as a reflection of a very Godly characteristic that humanity has been blessed with, and when someone like Tarrantino displays immense creativity like he does with his films, then I think that he is displaying an important aspect of God whether he means to or not. Now it’s true that he is vulgar at times and even gratuitous with the blood and guts, but he is also very brilliant with the way he presents very human and very visceral stories that show such a stark picture of the human condition. The effect his movies always have on me is that I come away asking myself “was the end result really worth all that ugliness?”. To simply watch the violence and come away convinced that it’s acceptable to rain down death on all who wrong you is supremely lazy on the part of the watcher. We’ve all been blessed with at least some measure of intelligence and the capacity for abstract and rational thought and to simply not use and accept what you see in any given movie as the acceptable course of action is just stupid. Movies that challenge what we believe and seem to promote all the wrong things just may be the very thing you need to jump start you into thinking about things in a way you wouldn’t have if you hadn’t been confronted with that particular point of view.

I’m not saying everyone should go see ultra violent and vulgar movies so that they can learn to think a certain way, I am just saying that writing them off in one broad stroke strikes me as irresponsible. There is truth everywhere and it can even be spoken from the mouths of fools. We have been given the ability to find this truth and claim it and use it and in the process we learn that there really is no place where God can’t be found. But some people just aren’t capable of sifting through questionable subject matter to find the truth and discard the rubbish and that’s OK. We shouldn’t make those people feel bad for that, but they also shouldn’t make others who are capable of doing that feel like heathens for having that ability.

Josh, I can’t imagine you meant it this way, but this kind of thing can go both ways, so I’ll mention it.

I don’t think we should speak of the person who watches films like this and has no problems with it as having an “ability”, for it could be maturity or it could be callousness. Just like the guy who refrains could be more discerning, or he could be a right-wing ascetic Pharisee.

I kind of wonder if Paul would even watch tv, take vacations, etc. Maybe we’re all wrong…

I meant the Apostle Paul, not the previously commenting Paul. Just to clarify.

wow sweet my comment is on there twice.
I thought I lost it the first time

Robert P. made a point when he said:

“I’m sad to say that I find this a better jumping off point than most Christian best-sellers and, especially, what is marketed as Christian film.”

Yep, you got it. Bad art in the name of Jesus is bad art. I love sci-fi, and I’ve read the old-school sci-fi classics with pleasure: Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein…. I think I’ve read (other than C.S. Lewis) maybe 2 or 3 good Christian sci-fi novels. It’s a genre Christians don’t seem to do well. Frankly, most Christian fiction in general isn’t that good. A shame, when you consider our heritage: “Paradise Lost,” “Piers Plowman,” “Pilgrim’s Progress,” and more.

Thanks for the link to Jeffrey Overstreet’s post.

I came away from the movie with a completely different feeling. I thought it illustrated that revenge doesn’t necessarily pay off the way you want it to. In enacting brutality on the Nazi’s, the Jews of the film lessened themselves and most died right along with the Nazi’s they were killing.

The climax is horrific and ironic and bone chilling. It is righteous revenge and justice coupled with inhuman cruelty from which no one emerges intact. The message I took from it was that in vengeance we become the thing we hate.

Is that what Tarantino wanted us to take away from it? I don’t know, but the juxtaposition of his images, music, and words suggest to me that he’s no fool.

I’d also like to point out that 90% of the movie is unobjectionable. It’s smart, clean, beautiful, and endlessly engaging. That’s part of Tarantino’s particular genius, he knows how to wring the greatest effect out of the briefest shots when the inevitable violence does erupt. Compared to a movie like Transformers or G.I. Joe this film contains very little violence, but that that it does is effective and horrifying because it carries weight and emotion and is not glamorized, or stylized to appeal to kids, or cartoonish but instead is frank and realistic.

Paul – yes, my point exactly. The line is different for different believers. And no, of course you know I don’t mean we participate in everything that the culture does; we have to figure out exactly what that means for us individually.

At bottom that really means we have to go deep into Christ to develop a consistent relationship with Him. The more we recognize His life in us as our own, the more we see Him as our inner Source, the more our actions will begin to conform to His desires – and in fact our desires will change. Or maybe they don’t change, but we become aware of our real desires in Christ. In any case, staying in close contact with Christ radically changes our thoughts, attitudes, and actions every day, and then we are better equipped to know exactly what we need to do on a daily basis, not just in movies we watch but in every other area.

The world thinks Christians are hypocrites when we don’t practice what we preach. A hypocrite is a mask-wearer, someone who hides behind a persona. There are many Christians who won’t go to movies at all who wear masks in other ways. I can’t tell you how many people I know who were turned off of Christianity at an early age by Christians, not because of the movies the Christians did or did not see, but because the Christians in their personal lives were sour, legalistic jerks with no joy. Spirit and truth, peace, love and joy in believers are the qualities the world is watching for. When they see these qualities of Christ, people almost always find Him to be irresistibly attractive.

Pete, I agree- Beer is tasty. The best part of living in Colorado is being in the land of the microbrewery.
I have found many films that contain “objectionable” or challenging material that is dealt with honestly to be more spiritually satisfying, better truth-food like Ron said, than forced easy happy clean schlock- Christian or secular.
On the other hand I don’t think films need to be as filled with romanticized murder, sex- whatever- as they can be (I loved Up. So much). But even if there are moments in a particular film that I may object to, I would never discount an entire piece of art because of that. For example The Science of Sleep contains quite a few moments that are pretty unsavory, but I consider it to be one of the most spiritually valuable movies I’ve ever watched. The picture of a man searching for a redeeming love- a love that can fill the many gaps in this man’s life, and how far he would go to pursue that love not only remind me of what I am with out God’s love but also how relentlessly my savior pursues me. But It’s a movie that requires discernment and is definitely not for everyone.
I’m looking forward to seeing Inglorious Basterds, but may have to wait till it’s out on DVD. I’m not to big on lonely one man theater trips.

I love good movies. Even violent ones. I felt like there was some deep meaning in Pulp Fiction. I’m not usually one to criticize an open discussion of art….but….

Are we just trying to be “relevant” with this one? Are we trying so hard to not be that guy, the fundie Christian, that we will try to find a deeper metaphor in anything? Without writing a novel, let me make two observations:

1) In this entire discussion I’ve yet to hear one “redemptive” thing about this film. I’ve heard that it is redemptive, I hear that it was “really good” like seventeen times in the review, but I have yet to hear why. What Christlike diamond in the rough am I missing? Just to be honest, that was a sub-standard movie review. Was it supposed to be funny? Where was the substance? If it is a short review, it should make a point other than, “It was really good………I was surprised….really good.”

2) The main point of the film is to flip the scales on the Nazis. It is a celebration of revenge, which is my fundamental issue with Tarantino. I don’t really buy the whole critique of violence in cinema anymore. He glories in it. How is a movie about Jews burning Nazis alive redemptive when considered next to a real life story of a Bonhoeffer or Ten Boom or Anne Frank?

I love movies, but if we want to convince other Christians of the redemptive power of “secular” cinema we have to do better than this. We have to be able to critique art, even an extremely well crafted piece.

For thoughts on the film from a talented Christian movie reviewer:
http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/must-read-movie-review-daniel-mendelsohn-inglourious-basterds-when-jews-attack/

Have you read any of the other comments, Caleb? Like, say, Pete’s comment a couple above yours that responded to Jeff’s review linked in an earlier comment?

I think the point about redemption is a good one. I think this film is asking me “can redemption come through violence?” It is not giving us a picture of Christ’s redemptive work. But by showing an alternate form of “redemption,” it pushed us to engage with what we really believe.

This film is showing me an image of vengeance and then asking “is this what you want?” At least, that’s what I took from the film. regardless of what the director intended. And my answer is a resounding “no, that isn’t what I want.” I do not believe in torture, I do not believe in the death penalty, I do not believe in abortion, I do not believe in invading other nations unless there is some pretty overwhelming reason to do so. And I did not enjoy watching people die, whether the Jews at the beginning of the film or the Nazis at the end. I watched the climax in horror.

And that is one of the reasons I like the film. Because it brought out how I really think and feel about revenge. It drew me to ponder the role of violence more deeply. It gave me a place to start in conversations. I think one piece of evidence that this film works as art is that it has inspired so much conversation here. Halloween II or whatever may be much, much more violent, but I doubt we will be talking about it like this, if at all.

So, whether my silly little review could ever meet someone’s standard isn’t really the point. The point is that we are struggling together as a community over really important issues. And whether you love him or hate him, as big a jerk as he might be, Tarantino has led us to this moment.

One other thing. I don’t look to art primarily to help me proclaim the Gospel or relate to culture. I know a lot of you do, and I think that’s great. But I wouldn’t see this or any film just to be in the cool crowd or whatever. I look to art to expand my thinking and feeling, to challenge me, to open me to pain or joy or loss. For me, art is a sacramental thing, a place where God’s Holy Spirit can speak to me and move me. This may be because I grew up in an artist’s colony, my father was a professional artist, and most of my younger years were spent among artists in studios, galleries, and shows. So I recognize that God has formed me in a particular way that he has not formed everyone.

Thomas – beautiful. Thanks.

First off, I applaud Paul for his courage in bringing this topic up. Dialogue is always healthy if it is respectful and has the truth as its goal.

I’ve never seen Tarantino’s films. I’ve always had a negative impression of them, but this review is the first I’ve seen to give me evidence to the contrary.

On a more general level, I have a variety of thoughts. First of all, I have known people who recommended films to me (such as The Prestige) that were, in my own opinion, so full of darkness and hatred that my opinion of them greatly diminished afterward. All artistic offerings have an overarching sensibility they seek to communicate. In the case of The Prestige, that sensibility was anger, rage, deceit, and revenge. Was it well done? Yes, but I know that the film left in me a reservoir of those same emotions. My brother and I actually argued vociferously after the film was over, and my mother pointed out the fact that we had just watched two hours of people doing exactly that. What did we expect? That films have no effect? That emotions don’t mean anything? That the brain isn’t designed to see an activity and mimic it? “If you sow to the flesh, you will reap corruption.”

Having said that, I know people who would never see Braveheart because of the gore. I am moved to tears every time I watch the film. Yes there is sex and violence, but the message and meaning are deeply, profoundly Christian.

However, I have seen films that were well done and had the right message, but a single moment in them will stick in my mind and cause me to fall later. Was it worth it? Clearly the problem was with myself, and not with the film per se, but nonetheless, perhaps I would have done better to never experience the artistic excellence and save my soul another blow.

Films are a powerful medium, and if there is any general accusation I would level against our culture (and sub-culture), it is that we consider them light fare, easy come, easy go. That simply isn’t the case.

One more thing: the verse about the Strong and the Weak in Paul is often brought up in these discussions, and the inference sometimes is that the Strong are supposed to be nice to the Weak. When it comes to spiritual purity, I would rather be considered Weak, and find fellowship in the weakness of Jesus, than I would assume myself Strong and end up planting a seed that will devastate my life later.

These lines are delicate, but not every message, however “right”, is worth the price of admission. You can make anything work into a Sunday School lesson (apparently even Catwoman, to my horror). That doesn’t make it acceptable.

P.S. Great post, Thomas. By the way, I love your reviews and think they are a lot of fun.

I’ve been reading all the posts since I posted early on and the discussion has been respectful, insightful, and thought provoking. This is why the RR is great. I have also felt my blood boil at some comments, but then would re-read a post and see where someone is coming from. My intention was never to act like I was some super Christian who never watches movies or does anything daring like drink a beer(gasp). I just felt moved to question what we are doing with what is out there, and why?

Basically it is a personal issue. Is it really about the movie?
I think it’s much deeper than that.

There have been so many great comments, some I wish I would have made myself. I must say it is nice to not be the only person struggling with this movie or the bigger issues it has sparked.

While reading the comments to this post, I was reminded of a short article John Piper wrote a couple months ago. Just thought I’d throw it out there to add to the discussion.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4023_Why_I_Dont_Have_a_Television_and_Rarely_Go_to_Movies/

Wow. That’s great stuff, Derek. Piper is exactly right.

Derek, thanks for the Piper article – loved it, and loved his humility.

Benjamin, all, good food for thought.

Paul, without your comments none of this light we’ve all come up with together would have ever been shed. I dig honesty.

I’m glad I checked the comments again before posting the Piper article. This discussion reminded me of it too Derek. This one paragraph pretty much sums up my thinking on movies and TV.

“I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father.”

Now my tolerance for violence may not be as high as some, but it might be higher than others. Things I can stomach make my wife flinch. I try to be sensitive to that. Something like The Dark Knight would disturb her (mainly because of The Joker). Because of that I don’t watch it when she’s home (and I pause or turn it off when she comes in). She doesn’t mind that I watch it and enjoy it, but she doesn’t want to see it.

I probably couldn’t handle the violence in Inglorious Basterds. I used to be a horror movie fanatic, but since I stopped watching them a few years ago my tolerance has gotten quite low. But like Piper said in his article, and I agree with, if someone else can handle it then I have no problem with that.

The only time I have issue with the violence is when it’s a movie like the Saw films or other torture movies (I’ve only ever seen the first Saw, edited on TV). If it’s gratuitous and horrific just for the sake of pushing the blood and gore and finding “novel” ways of murdering someone, then I can’t see how there could be any redeeming value in it. Some people might, but personally I don’t.

All that to say, in agreement with Piper, violence and language I’m okay with (within reason for my personal tolerance), but nudity or sexual situations I have zero tolerance for.

I have not seen the movie, but I did go and read the Violent Content section of the review at http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0004787.cfm. I encourage anyone who is on the fence as to whether or not the film is too violent to read that section.

As I read the comments on this post, the heart-wrenching AP song “After the Last Tear Falls” keeps coming to mind. I think we would agree that it is an expression of the biblical longing to see sin done away with. It is an example of why I love the work of so many of the artists who contribute to this site…they have the ability to remind me of the hopelessness of life apart from Christ and the longing of redemption. They don’t need to glorify gratuitous sin in order to do so…as many movies seem to do. Sin is something that should cause tears to fall, not something that is designed to entertain.

Perhaps art sometimes has to show darkness in order to get a glimpse of the brightness of light. It can be done in a manner that does not make us want more blood, want more sex, or want more unholiness to make us laugh or ponder deeper thoughts.

The Scriptures often present the darkness of sin in contrast to the light of salvation. We read of the prostitute caught in the act and hear of those who would stone her to death. The Scriptures glorify that such sin is overcome by the light. We don’t go to the Scriptures hoping to see more cleavage in the next encounter and a higher body count in the next chapter. Sadly, I think many movies such as this one are based on such murderous and adulterous desires.

We each have different levels of tolerance, and I hold it against no one for their exercise of liberty. I would offer this one word of encouragement though: please remember that there are many people (some quite young in their lives or their faith) who visit this site and look up to the artists and the community here. Let us all be careful that our liberty is not a stumbling block to them.

Thanks for letting me share my opinion!

“After the last tear falls
After the last secret’s told
After the last bullet tears through flesh and bone
After the last child starves
And the last girl walks the boulevard
After the last year that’s just too hard…”

Personally, I think Jesus would laugh at this entire discussion. Not to belittle anyone here, but honestly…Christ, the apostles, and most Christians outside of American culture, were(are) far too busy sharing the Gospel and living in Christian community to be so wrapped up in critiquing worldly entertainment, and the patches of light that may or may not be discovered within it. There is a common thread throughout all these types of discussions, and it is simply a focus on self. ‘How does this movie make ME feel? What truth can ‘I’ find in it?’ We in the American culture are entirely wrapped up in this search for self gratification, whether you be a revisionist Christian or Tattoo Joe. Going to an R-rated film in search of ‘Truth for ME’ can be the same thing as going to glory in the sex and violence. The same attitude is behind each motive; the building up of ‘I’. The attitude I often see from Christians is anything but Christ-like on this issue. The fact that they may cause another Christian to stumble by their action, or that they may be branded a hypocrite, is lost on them. Because automatically their own personal searches for ‘truth in everything’ trumps all opposition. I see this as irresponsible, denying of Christian community and accountability, and ultimately sinful. Just because there is truth in something does not make that something ‘great’, ‘good’, or ‘appropriate for Christians’. If Inglourious Basterds had come out in 1rst century Palestine, would Jesus and his disciples, after a hard day’s ministering, have gone over to the local cinema to kick back and eat some popcorn? Would Jesus have subjected his mind to the film’s depraved sections just to glean a few obscure points of ‘good’ from it? Would he have then gone out and preached a sermon on them? Honestly guys, Jesus wasn’t worried about ‘engaging the culture’ or having some Buddhist-like private meditation on how Inglourious Basterds made him consider the validity of violence. He was occupied with ‘setting the captives free’. All you need to accomplish that is the Gospel, pure and simple. You don’t need to outsmart the culture or beat them at their own game. The Gospel is complete. Christ was crucified and raised, we are dead to sin and alive unto God. Our task is to spread this message, regardless of its political correctness, or of the time, place, and culture we find ourselves in. It has been, is, and will always be enough to win souls. It does not need the assistance of culture-engaging art. Am I against Christians expressing God and his truth through art? No, and that’s not the point here. My point is that we shouldn’t try to cloak indulging in worldly art as Christ-like or God glorifying, because it is not. And if it is not, then what does that mean? Again, let us become more involved in REAL life and with REAL people. Let us spend our limited time here on earth fixated on sharing the Gospel. I believe that task should become both our work AND our leisure. We Christians shouldn’t even have TIME to go watch a movie, much less indulge in private meditations of the great ME, be they meditations on truth nuggets or otherwise. Both can lead down a road of distraction, where neither God is glorified nor his Word spread. I know it’s a hard truth to grapple with. We feel we have the RIGHT to entertainment, it is deeply ingrained into our western bones, and with me most of all. We Americans almost view entertainment as a GOD-GIVEN right! It is something we feel that we cannot live without. Now, a Christian can sugar-coat watching a worldly film. He can call black white and sound really spiritual and hip doing it, but at the end of the day he is just a carnal man or woman, setting down to two hours (or more) of self-indulgence. Am I condemning all movie watching by Christians? That is a good question. Honestly, I don’t know. But let’s keep our priorities as Christians straight here. Enough of the spiritual paradoxes and double-talk. Let’s be honest with ourselves and God.

“Compared to a movie like Transformers or G.I. Joe this film contains very little violence, but that that it does is effective and horrifying because it carries weight and emotion and is not glamorized, or stylized to appeal to kids, or cartoonish but instead is frank and realistic.”

I believe this is part of the reason why Tarantino is so revered/hated: because the violence in his movies is not the kind of violence that we (including myself here) are desensitized to in more mainstream action movies. It’s shocking and disturbing, as true violence is, and as Pete points out, even though he can make an artistically beautiful film that’s 90% free of it, that 10% has people talking. When I hear “Reservoir Dogs”, I think “ear scene,” even though as a friend recently pointed out, we never see the violence actually happen to the man’s ear; Tarantino is an artisan in creating the kind of moment where our own minds fill in the blanks with the suspense and feeling of dread he creates (much as Alfred Hitchcock could do.)

I haven’t seen this movie yet; I just find it interesting how stark the contrast is between people who revere his work and people who revile it (and how these people could probably have a beer together and agree about lots of other things, just not Quentin Tarantino.)

Hey Kevin,

I know your comment to my post is way up there in the middle of this thing but I’m gonna reply anyway.

I didn’t really mean it the way you addressed it, but you still have a good point and you’re right, there are two sides to everything. However, I was going with the assumption that we are dealing with a person who watches a “questionable” film and comes away with an inspiration to dig deeper into the subject and find the spot where the truth of God intersects with broken humanity. In that case I think such a person is displaying anything but callousness. So that’s where I was coming from when I said what I said, but thanks for the input, i like this thread.

E, just to offer another opinion of the films you mentioned, critics like Steven D. Greydanus have persuasively argued that the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma is telling a very different story.

“The remake follows closely in the first film’s footsteps, except for all the business about honor, recovered self-worth and justice, which are replaced here with steady mayhem and general lawlessness. There’s no spiritual duel, no earned respect and debt of honor…
The filmmakers have a right, of course, to depart from their source material in whatever way they see fit; the original can only be a point of comparison, not a canonical standard. That the remake essentially rapes the first film may be an outrage to fans, but it isn’t strictly what makes the new 3:10 to Yuma an odious film. Still, the warping of the original film’s moral vision and the bizarre prospect of filmmakers seeking to honor a classic while profaning what it stood for makes for a more intriguing story than the nihilism and anarchy of another post-everything Western.”

And on the other hand, There Will Be Blood, to start with, is the best lived-out illustration I’ve ever seen of my favorite Larry Crabb quote, “The greatest lie believed today is that one can know God without being known by someone else.”
Jeffrey Overstreet, in his review for Christianity Today, wrote: These symmetries emphasize one of the film’s central themes: How we treat our brothers, sons, and fathers will define us. Heaven is a grace-filled community, and hell is isolation and the absence of love. If there were categories in the video stores called “The Wages of Sin” or “The Nature of Evil,” this film could fit perfectly in either section.

So for my part, I see There Will Be Blood of inestimable value in the way it reminds us to examine ourselves daily, cautioning us against treating our neighbors as tools for our own advancement and shutting ourselves off from everyone else, while I would describe 3:10 to Yuma as a work of art that is ultimately hollow with underlying principles that I don’t want to build my life around.

A lot of this sounds vaguely familiar…

The Wrestler: http://www.rabbitroom.com/?p=1356

Once (of all things): http://www.rabbitroom.com/?p=593

Harry Potter: http://www.rabbitroom.com/?p=40

Gay Dumbledore: http://www.rabbitroom.com/?p=135

Bad Language: http://www.rabbitroom.com/?p=600

Sin in Film: http://www.rabbitroom.com/?p=605

Forthcoming: Magnolia (whenever Jason Gray and I get around to talking about one of the most spiritually moving movies of all time.)

Pete- I’ve been thinking the same thing…

So in the spirit of general bunny harmony, I recommend that Thomas’ next movie to review be “Ponyo”, where we can discuss the inherent weirdness of Japanimation and how Disney is the devil.

John,

Your argument, if taken literally, would lead to a whole sale rejection of 99% of art in our culture. As much as I agree with the idea that our culture is self-obsessed and uses artistic license and “entertainment” as an excuse for doing things they should have no business doing, the nuclear option you suggest would do as much harm as good. Frankly, I find it kind of ironic that someone would argue for the whole sale rejection of an artistic medium on a website of Christian artists. Talk about the wrong fight to pick!

Nevertheless, I’m actually going to second your basic point. We do worry about a lot of things (like seeing movies) that carry way to much weight and take up way too much of our money and time. I love to see a good film and seek them out, especially clean foreign material. But I don’t see a new movie every weekend. Some people see a film just because its being talked about. I think thats silly.

So I totally disagree with your assumption that art can’t transform lives from darkness to light. But our culture as a whole would probably do well to stop the steady deadening of their minds (anyone who sees as many movies as most college age people do is simply wasting money and brain cells on bad material. There aren’t enough good movies in theaters to warrant it) and read their Bibles and learn Christ.

I will make this point: I’ve seen a lot of films defended on the basis that they show “how not to live”. I don’t deny that some of these films may in fact accurately portray the human condition, but I think that argument is itself flawed. Technically it could be used on virtually anything underhand. “I saw the Exorcist because it showed me the evil of demonic possession!”

That seems absurd, but (as any philosophy major will tell you) reductio ad absurdum. The argument isn’t valid.

In response to Pete and Kevin: You last comments were short and non-descript. I don’t know if you were responding to one person, one specific line of thought, or the whole of those whom you disagree with. The way your made your remarks seems to trivialize the thought and the effort that many have taken to share their hearts.

I personally spent a great amount of time trying to figure out how to respond….rewriting my post multiple times. For you both to seemingly dismiss the discussion as the same ole thing heard many times before is disheartening. For you to respond in sacrasm with the Magnolia and Ponyo remarks seems condescending as well.

I would not have replied at all except I received a very poignant email this morning that is quite appropriate. One of the freshmen college students in our church just emailed me. He asked for pastoral help and prayer. He said that he was afraid that he had disgraced the name of Christ and shamed his testimony as a believer last night at work when he uttered foul words in anger. His next few words are haunting as he wrote: “I think I have allowed the world to affect me…I’ve been watching movies that I shouldn’t watch.” His email made it clear that the movies included a lot of foul language and violence, similar to the movie in our discussion here.

So please…for the sake of the testimony of Christ, do not dismiss the comments of those who think we need to be extra cautious about the intake of profanity, violence, and immorality simply because you think of us as all-too-simplistic. As I stated before, I do not condemn you for your choice to watch these movies…I just think there should be some degree of cautiousness when encouraging others to do so as well.

I hope my comments seem gracious. I don’t mean to be accusatory. Please forgive me if I have.

I don’t think that Pete and Kevin were really being condescending in their short posts. Perhaps Pete was just observing that this really is an interesting and sometimes difficult discussion. And perhaps Kevin was just being funny.

Thank you for your reply Benjamin. Honestly, I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. I greatly respect many of the artists on this site. I am an artist myself, and strangely enough, a filmmaker. I was not arguing for a complete rejection of the medium of film. I understand that was gleaned from one of my closing sentences. What I should have said was, ‘Am I condemning the watching of all WORLDLY movies by Christians?’ Again, I am not sure if that is the way to go or not. I used to be very much an advocate for ‘finding truth in everything’, regardless of its rating or other objectionable content. Having jumped off that ship though, I now see the very real danger that argument presents. In truth, it has the power, if taken to the furthest extent, to effectively sear the conscience. Things that a Christian should be repulsed at viewing are now brushed off as being ‘no big deal’ and ‘inconsequential in the long-run’. I think neither is true. Like it or not, images stick, be they of good or bad. Any filth we view has the potential to become yet another tool that Satan can wield against us. I understand that Christians cannot shield themselves from all filth, we live in a broken world and have no way of escaping it, but God has given us the power to resist it. However, that is an entirely different matter than willfully indulging in a filthy movie. There, God has no place protecting you, because by free-will choice you have chosen to take the mind of Christ into a pigsty. If there are patches of dry ground in it, what does that matter? The mire around is greater, and while you personally may spot the clear ground, others (including Christians) will only see the filth. And how must they react when they see YOU indulging in the said film? Again, this goes back to the philosophy of ME. We feel as if people should mind their own business, because ‘I’ am trying to have a good movie experience. I am too busy searching for diamonds in the dirt to care about what others may think. Again, I believe this is sinful. I know all of us view movie watching as no big deal. We take it lightly, along with other forms of art. But art is powerful. Satan was a musician in the beginning. One of his greatest missions is to corrupt art and fool us into thinking its great and acceptable.

Again, I meant no disrespect to the artists here. Their music and writings have benefited me greatly over the years. They create Godly art that mainly assists Christians in their spiritual lives. But as I spoke of, we can become TOO fixated on this process, especially when it comes to exposing ourselves to worldly art. Often, and I am guilty of this, we Christian artists become far too focused upon our own monkish spiritual journey, justifying it because we are ‘meditating upon the Lord and his truth’. Again, this can be linked back to the western autonomous mindset. Let us strive to remember the Gospel. Let us strive to think on the thousands of souls who are perishing day by day. Perhaps one down our very street is ready to plunge headfirst into the pit of hell, while we set on our rear at home, watching a worldly movie and glorying in its ‘high points’. I know that is a harsh example. But as I said before, let’s think a little here. We live in a war zone and the battle is on, regardless of the fact that many of us have dropped out of it. Christ needs our help not our apathy. He needs soldiers, not truth philosophers.

Thanks for your response JacobT!

Oh, and I meant to say earlier to Benjamin…well said!

John,

I have been somewhat on both sides of this issue at times. The way through is a different way.

I used to be a sort of “cheap grace” person. Jesus died for my sins so God now forgives me when I sin. I trust Him to get me to Heaven, and take care of my outer needs. I live my life and try not to do too much sin (how much is “too much”?). That was the Gospel to me.

The fruit of that is a life lived for Numero Uno. I do what is pleasurable, yet since I am a Christian, only to a point. When I sin, I ask God for forgiveness.

The other thing that I lived, at another time in my life, is that God forgives me, yes, but I have got to try really hard to be holy and stay away from sin and avoid temptation and think of baseball stats when a pretty girl walks by and don’t ever drink a beer or cuss or smoke.

Both paths are wrong. Both have elements of truth in them, but they are mixed with deception. Both paths drive us into sin – whether sin by indulgence in sinful things, or abstaining and then feeling “victorious” (but in our own self and effort), thus enabling, as CS Lewis termed it, a subtle undercurrent of self-satisfaction.

Either way we lose. We condemn ourselves, we commend ourselves.

The way through is a narrow way, the width of a Man. This is the man who “became sin for us”, died for our sins, but was also resurrected so that we could become the righteousness of God in Him. This same Man ascended for us and sent us the Spirit to power our weak, helpless humanity which is unable to be good in and of itself (and created so. Jesus’ humanity was no stronger in its ability to perform good than ours).

If we trust this Man, who now lives by the Holy Spirit inside us, to empower us, to live in us, through us, if we cultivate a daily, constant, abiding relationship with this Person, and treat Him as our Life, He will change us. We won’t have to engage in sin-avoidance out of fear. We’ll simply be as He is.

It simplifies a lot of questions for me. I don’t ask myself, “Would Jesus watch this movie.” I just affirm that He is in me, that He is my life, my love, my joy, my inner purity, and step out on that as Fact.

That changes my desires; really, it connects me with my real, deep down desires in my spirit and gets past all the world-think that runs through my soul.

So – a couple of years ago, I watched Beowulf, hoping it was a great hero-story. Some of the scenes had over-the-top debauchery. What did I do? I didn’t run screaming from my laptop screen. I thought along the lines of, “Jesus, you are my purity; I am pure because You are perfect purity in me,” and I forwarded, not in fear, but in something like annoyance.

But that’s the secret to dealing with any temptation. We have no capacity to deal with temptation on our own. Most of us know that. But many of us stop short of knowing Christ as our strength, and instead enact a lot of fence laws, coping mechanisms, and sin-avoidance-treadmill activities to keep from sinning.

Your concerns, like those of Paul and others earlier in this conversation, spring from the knowledge that holiness is required in the Christian life. That is true. It is required. But it cannot be achieved by worldly means: self-effort, human performance, psychological aids. The good news (or the rest of it, beyond mere forgiveness) is that He shares His holiness with us, in real time, as we need it. All we have to do is appropriate it by reliance on Him living within us, and use it in that moment of need. It belongs to us, because we belong to Him, and He belongs to us. We have been given His resources as a gift, just as a husband’s resources belong to the wife.

That’s my take on what movies to watch. Each person has to develop his relationship with Christ to the point where that inner relationship is the deciding factor. No one else is responsible for that relationship but each of us ourselves.

John,

I understand where you’re coming from, even though I think that your last comment (‘He needs soldiers, not truth philosophers’) reveals an irony. I’m almost certain you meant, “We need to stop looking for truth in evil things and instead find it and use it where we know it is (namely, the Bible).” Now on one level, I couldn’t agree more. Without the Bible, we have nothing. But on the other hand, the entire reason all of us here are having this discussion is because we lack a common framework by which we can judge aesthetic offerings. This is the fruit of the “eye of the beholder” mentality. Every man for himself. Don’t bother formulating a Biblically sound and philosophically coherent criteria for good art. Just go with the flow (or in Christianese, whatever the Spirit tells you).

The reason this came about was as follows: the past generation, out of a feeling of artistic insecurity, created a sub-culture of bad art that preached propaganda. This propaganda, I hasten to add, was true in a Biblical sense, but artistically its presentation was meant to force open the doors of the mind rather than ask questions that would evoke the right answers (which is how the professionals do it). There are, of course, exceptions, but the overarching field of Christian art is dominated by this trend.

The new generation has reacted to this in one of two ways: they either reproduced the same kind of propaganda because, tragically, that’s all they were exposed to (maybe that’s what they considered the “right kind” of art), or they left the sub-culture and now exist with little to no Biblical anchor point for their artistic choices. Once again, I am speaking generally.

This problem (which is the source of your concern, I think) would be resolved if a coherent Biblical framework for good art could be formed that would eliminate propaganda and its justifiers in evangelism and also create a criteria by which those who have left the sub-culture can wisely choose their artistic intake.

Such a task is far too involved for this medium, but I would like to suggest at least one basic tenet this framework might include (and one which particularly pertains to this discussion of films).

As I pointed out in my last post, there is a justification for unseemly art out there that goes something like this: “it reflects the real world effects of sin, so it preaches the Biblical point of view about evil”. I understand why this rationale is used. We appear to be connecting the art we see with the Bible we read.

But the basic assumption (the evil I just saw on screen accurately reflects Biblical reality) is flawed. First of all, it does not accurately represent the Bible. The Bible’s viewpoint is always redemptive. Even when a sin as grievous as David’s adultery with Bathsheba is presented, there is a Nathan to confront it. “What you meant for evil, God meant for good,” is the story of the Bible.

The best films are redemptive. The films that are worth watching again and again are redemptive. Films create a world. We literally see with the eyes of the camera what the filmmakers want us to see. These worlds can be realistic or not realistic, that is they can reflect the redemptive reality of the Bible or a Godless reality. Even a film that shows evil as destructive and undesirable, but is not redemptive, is essentially distorting reality. That’s not to say that these films can’t be watched or recommended, but an unhealthy dosage of them breaks Paul’s command to “set your mind on whatever is good, honorable, upright, and pure.”

Redemption comes in many forms, but if it is absent, the effect is fundamentally misleading. If art is to be worthy of presentation, it should not only be great, it should be good.

You all sucked me in. Went and saw it.

Thinking about the message of Inglorious, I’m reminded of a film called Munich from a few years ago, that seemed more poignant to me.

Even more poignant to me is that folks can have a meaningful discussion about this stuff – that’s a good thing in my mind.

Stephen,

Thanks for sharing those reviews. I would agree that if there is value in There Will be Blood, it is in the power of a really negative example.

It reminds me of the Lewis line that if you were in hell, you would look back on your life and it would all be hell. The converse being true of heaven.

Within the scope and context of There Will Be Blood, I really didn’t see any alternative or possibility of redemption or a redemptive aspect in the story. If you have to add that on after you leave the theatre all on your own, I would argue that the positive thing and your really healthy response is coming from you – and may not be coming from the film at all.

The 3:10 review was interesting and I’m at a disadvantage in that I haven’t seen the original version (will check it out). Beyond the comparison with the original, it was interesting in that I don’t think I agreed with a single thing he said. As an example, Greydanus argued that Wade stayed with him for the entire film, went through the gauntlet in Yuma and then gunned down his own crew motivated by… pity. Seriously? I didn’t get that at all.

Ron Block: Word count- 747

Benjamin Wolaver: Word count: 652

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Benjamin, thanks for your good thoughts. After seeing (and really liking) No Country for Old Men I wondered about the “truth” presented in the ending. Was it redemptive storytelling? Probably not in that it was not the “complete” truth. Evil was presented as such but was not defeated with good. And so I continue to wonder why I still like the movie so much (apart from the wonderful technical aspects).

And I seem to have come away with this: Maybe in some art, the lack of goodness, beauty and true justice magnifies its worth. The movie or painting, etc. may not complete the redemptive process but when we come away from it we find ourselves “continuing” the story in our longing for “redemptive completion”. This may not be the creator’s intent but maybe it is true nonetheless.

However, having not seen IB, this may not have anything to do with that movie or, for that matter, this discussion!

Benjamin – well said, that is what I was angling towards I think.

I’m glad E broke down and saw it…maybe I can hold out a little longer before my curiosity gets the best of me.

Steve- I appreciate your heart for folks having issues of conscience, I too feel the weight of this issue, but that doesn’t mean that Pete can’t give out links to the previous discussions and I can’t make a joke. I don’t think either of us were saying the case was closed or trying to shush the other side. Interestingly, if you will read the thread from Pete’s Wrestler post, you’ll find that we are of differing opinions in these matters. Wolaver #57 expressed my stance pretty well.

I would like re-ask a question from a previous comment, for Thomas, Pete or anyone else who would like to give it a go, give some kind of criteria they use to determine the “redemptive quality” of a film. I’ve read that idea a few times in the comments, and would like it fleshed out a bit. We can find some truth in anything, so I’d like to hear some more explanation on that one.

Ron has come as close as anyone to explaining some principles of media consumption, but I still have questions. I anticipate the answer of “it’s a personal decision”, but I’d still like to hear how you make the decision.

Ron- I hear what you’re saying that both paths can lead to bad ends, that avoidance can lead to pride or self-reliance, but the opposite is not necessarily true. We can avoid stuff and come away feeling smug, but relying on Christ and Him indwelling us powerfully doesn’t mean we soak in anything and expect Him to shield us from it. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but it’s not all up to the individual, I think, there are real limits to it. You’ve stated previously that we shouldn’t watch porn, so you believe it too, I think. I don’t want to misrepresent you, but this is same question I left The Wrestler discussion with. I don’t think we are far apart on this, I just need you to write a book on it or something…

My goal here, personally, is to understand those with whom I disagree, also be open for a change of opinion, and maybe be used change some. We should all be sharper as a result of this exchange, or maybe Ponyo is a good idea…

Thanks for responding and addressing my thoughts Kevin! I appreciate the grace shown in the entire thread. It is needed when we expose our hearts before one another.

- SDG

P.S. Speaking of redemptive movies, I enjoyed “Everything is Illuminated” in this respect but I’m afraid to admit it publicly…one time I was searching for a dvd of the movie and the little computer algorithm that decides what else you may be interested in said, “If you like this movie, you might also enjoy ‘The Very Best of David Hasselhof’” Ugh.

Kevin, film critic Jeffrey Overstreet has already been mentioned several times in the comments here. I know for me, his book Through a Screen Darkly: Looking Closer at Beauty, Truth, and Evil at the Movies helped shape the kind of movies I watch more than anything else. I recommend it all the time. It might be a help in seeing where some of us are coming from.

Steve- There’s a reason why Peter says to “above all, love one another earnestly”, because it’s gonna be needed. Thanks right back atcha, brother.

Thanks Stephen, I’ll check that out.

Something just registered within me as more posts keep coming in to voice reasons for, opinions, etc. If we had as much passion to argue our faith than we have over the issue of whether to watch a film or not then we would all win. Maybe this really is about faith?

I think we ll want to justify our feeling on this issue of movies with long and winding arguments that still leave us empty in the end. There may end up being a majority consensus one way or the other, but there will always be people who will do what they want regardless of what goes on in this forum. The pull of media and advertising, reviews and public praise will get some of us to go to see things we know we MIGHT regret. Who knows?

Anyway I’m just adding another path to meander on and am enjoying reading all the comments. Who would have thought this debate would still be going.

Paul,

The reason I am drawn to debate is because I think it is hugely fun. Not everyone is made that way, I understand, but the thrill of the argument is enjoyable for me whether or not someone “wins”.

Having said that, I just want to make clear that I have never, in my mind, been speaking specifically about this film or this review. So I for one want to make sure my vote is counted: One Minute Reviews are fantastic, and Thomas Mackenzie is a good Christian and a great guy. I can’t wait to see the next one.

Benjamin: I wouldn’t go that far. Thomas is basically lying when he calls this a one minute review. It is more like three or four minutes. How can someone do that and still be a Christian?

(I think his reviews are hilarious, and ok, so he takes a little artistic license with the phrase “One Minute.” He is probably still a Christian).

I agree this is great fun and so was Thomas’ review.

Kevin,

You said,
“We can avoid stuff and come away feeling smug, but relying on Christ and Him indwelling us powerfully doesn’t mean we soak in anything and expect Him to shield us from it. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but it’s not all up to the individual, I think, there are real limits to it. You’ve stated previously that we shouldn’t watch porn, so you believe it too, I think.”

It isn’t as much a “shouldn’t” as a “won’t” if we are trusting Christ living within us. What I am trying to get at is that trusting His life in us makes our choices different, because then it is “God in us willing and acting according to His good pleasure.” If I am trusting Christ to live in me as my purity then it is an obvious extension of that inner trust that I will not watch pornography. A believer who is watching pornography is not trusting Christ as his indwelling purity, and then sinning another sin by failing to trust Christ as his Savior from condemnation. That’s just a fact.

But we can trust Christ to save us from Hell and yet be watching pornography; many Christians do just that. How much can we watch? Where is the line? The truth is that no Christ-indwelt person can watch pornography without feeling a serious inner godly loathing of what he is doing, which of course translates unfortunately into self-condemnation in most cases. If he is doing so he is failing to appropriate Christ as his indwelling purity. The reason for this is that he is putting himself under the Law; “I ought not to look at pornography.” He’s putting pressure on his tiny, pitiful, weak human self to perform Christ’s job. And that pressure causes him to cave in to temptation.

My point with “trusting the indwelling power of Christ”, as I so often hammer on, is that it must be circumstance specific. If I am writing a song, I am (hopefully) trusting Him as my creativity. If I am parenting, I want to trust Him as the indwelling Father. If tempted in any way, He is my way of escape, the very virtue I need in the midst of the temptation, whatever it may be. Reliance must be specific, not a general trust of “Jesus is my Savior” or “Jesus saved me so I can go to Heaven when I die” but “Jesus is my patience” or peace or joy or hatred of evil or purity or courage. He is exactly what I need right NOW.

So the point of my earlier post was that if we develop a deep and specific relationship with this Lord and Savior who claims to live inside us, who claims that we no longer live but that He is our life, who claims that we died and our life is now hidden with Him in God, who claims that He is our indwelling righteousness – if we develop this union or unity with Him in all things, it will show in our choices.

Or we can come at it from cheap grace. Jesus died for me, so I can do what I feel like doing. Or, Jesus died for me and now I’ve got to pay him back by Not Sinning and Trying to Be a Good Christian. Either way, we lose – and others lose, because we are created to be God’s assets, not self-condemning or self-commending liabilities.

Sheesh. Benjamin, there is no way you can beat me on the amount of words. I’m trying to do the best I can on brevity but the brevity muse never answers when I call.

Who cares about brevity… I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts Ron… every word of them…

I think Thomas made a good point when he said no one is discussing this film. I have logged into this thread every day since it was first posted hoping to see some specific talk about the movie itself but all i’m seeing is post after post of hypothetical situations and general ideas about what is ok and what is not and on and on and on…. And two or three of those kinds of posts are my own so i’m pointing no fingers…

So for those who’ve seen Inglorious Basterds, tell me about it…

I wasn’t being sarcastic, we’ve been meaning to do a write up on Magnolia for over a year, and I didn’t mean to be terse. I linked those posts because they very closely mirror this discussion and I don’t have the time or energy to dive into all the old arguments right now.

Great idea, Josh. I talked a little about it before but allow me to expand

I was smitten nearly from the first shot. In a matter of seconds it’s obvious that this is going to be like something I haven’t seen in decades. It invokes a classic western right off the bat.

The movie is structured in chapters that are each comprised primarily of a single scene. Each of these scenes are masterpieces in and of themselves. Every word is weighted and pregnant with implication. The movie doesn’t even need the violence. The scenes, the dialogue, the non-verbal ‘word play’ are all so intense that I nearly gnawed my nails off in worry. The few and far between violent images are merely punctuation marks on what are otherwise some of the most tensely written scenes in the history of cinema. For those that have seen it, the opening scene and scene in the basement with the officer are the ones I loved the most.

The film marks a large step forward for Tarantino in a lot of ways. It’s direly serious most of the time, and thought provoking with only Brad Pitt’s character providing the occasional comic relief. The camera angles, the music, the audible cues, the unbelievable unknown actors, it all comes together into something that’s wholly unique and yet also wholly homage. Homage to those great old WWII movies, homage to Westerns and, overall, an homage to cinema itself.

In the end it’s a crying shame that so much stink has arisen from it’s questionable aspects because the majority of the film is something that every movie goer should experience. People don’t make movies like this anymore, it’s a remembering of a forgotten art.

Actually, a more interesting topic, I think, would be the question of why certain filmmakers have their PR firms promote their art in various ways. Hearing you guys talk about this film makes me want to see it a lot more than the brutal cocky trailer.

When M. Night Shyamalan (who I love as a filmmaker despite his fall from grace) presents a trailer it always has to be “scary” when anyone who has seen his films and knows them knows they aren’t really about that at all.

So maybe marketing types should pay more attention to presenting the art itself rather than presenting the lowest common denominator.

Dang! I saw the video and read some of this on Tuesday while I was in New York City, but couldn’t comment then. By the time I get back in town Thomas has checked out.

He made a comment about Halloween II. I had two thoughts on that. First, my wife scored us Letterman tickets on Monday night (very cool) and they did a parody of the preview essentially saying it was not to be confused with Halloween 2. The show will air Friday night and it was a cute clip.

Second, in relationship to horror and in particular slasher films has anyone read “Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film: by E. Michael Jones. http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=626066

I listened to an interview with Jones a few years ago on an issue of Mars Hill Audio Journal. It was an interesting take on a genre, that like Thomas, I would have just ignored. Too bad he stormed out of this post (kidding folks) as I’d like to know if he’s read the book. However, I’d also like to know if anyone else has read it as it sounds interesting.

I look forward to reading through this thread as it looks like a number of folks opined on this one.

Thomas, if you are still lurking out there, I love these reviews. Keeping coming!

Ron- Gotcha, no beef here with your intent, and if ever you’re in New England with nothing to do, and I have nothing to do, I’ll offer you a cup of coffee and further discussion. Have your people call my people.

To the movie itself- I don’t know if somebody said this, but I’m curious to know if there is a reason why “Basterd” is misspelled?

Thanks Pete… I am dying to see this movie. It sounds like Tarantino threw in some different little quirks in this one along with his usual stuff (which is always somehow the same yet different).

One question though… Is this movie based at all on reality or is WWII about the only historically accurate detail?

Josh,

I’d place it firmly in the speculative fiction category. By the end you’ll understand why.

I just read over my last post and that is not how i talk at all…

There is a 1978 Italian film titled “The Inglorious Bastards.” It is WWII movie billed as: Whatever the Dirty Dozen did they do it dirtier!

However, according to Aug. 24, 2009 Associated Press story Tarantinio didn’t change the spelling to avoid any mix-ups.

“I’m never going to explain that,” Tarantino said during a news conference in May at the Cannes Film Festival, where “Inglourious Basterds” premiered. “When you do an artistic flourish like that, to describe it, to explain it, would just … invalidate the whole stroke in the first place.

“(Artist Jean-Michel) Basquiat takes the letter L from a hotel room door and sticks it in his painting,” he added. “If he describes why he did it, he might as well not have done it at all.”

An addenda to previous comment, the title of the movie — spelled incorrectly — appears on the stock of one character’s rifle. Some believe that may suggest something about that character, as in his intelligence or literacy.

One of my favorite westerns is “Unforgiven.” I walked away from watching it thinking I had just seen Eastwood make a clear statement against redemptive violence. But when I talked to some others, Christians and non-Christians, their response was that the movie gloried in violence. The climax of the film is a shootout where he kills all the evil-doers. The denouement could indicate that he sold his soul or that he was rewarded for what he did.

Eastwood made a much stronger and straight-forward statement with “Gran Torino.” But I’m not sure most average film-watchers picked up on what he was saying any more than they thought through the supposed equivocation of “Unforgiven.” As the credits began to role on Gran Torino, a guy with his girlfriend at my screening actually said: “Wait a minute, when does he go back and kill everybody.”

The reality is that many people watch movies solely as entertainment. They don’t spend a lot of time thinking about any deep or hidden meanings. They don’t use them as a jumping off place for discussions about truth or good or the way the world is vs. how it could be.

But that is what I do with films and books and TV shows and news accounts. I recently watched “Pulp Fiction” with my 15-year-old daughter. It got us talking about the dangers of drugs (no sugar-coating in the film) and how people go through their lives without thinking about the consequences of their actions. We talked about the non-linear story-telling, the changing points of view, the characters that appear and disappear only to come back again in a totally different context. We talked about how you couldn’t understand any of the film unless you watched the whole thing. And we talked about the passage of “scripture” that Jules quotes more than once, but only comes to some understanding at the end.

Sorry to disagree Jules, but the real truth is that we are all the weak, we are all the tyranny of evil men and some (most, maybe even all) of us, at one point or another, at least try to be a shepherd.
“Inglourious Basterds” isn’t a film I have seen. I will probably watch it on video. I’m not a big fan of Tarantino. I loved “Pulp Fiction,” but thought “Kill Bill” was mostly eye candy that pandered to my darker desires for vengeance. Don’t even get me started on his piece of the Grindhouse film (talky sexploiation, to give a hint).

Yet despite his inconsistency, I pay attention to Tarantino. He is popular and he is frequently trying to say something (good or bad, most of his work isn’t just mindless entertainment to make a buck). Yes, the language in Tarantino’s films is often strong, but my kids hear worse on the school bus each day. Some of his films may have sexual content that I wouldn’t let any of my children see. And the picture of the world he paints often isn’t pretty, but I work in Newark and have to admit — the world I’m in often isn’t pretty. But back when I started listening to popular music I came to the conclusion I would much rather listen to an artist who was searching than one who claimed to have all of the answers. One of my college roommates came to Christ after listening to “Hotel California.”

Should I avoid Tarantino’s work or the work of others because I (and some around me) are the weak? I see the point. An alcoholic should stay out of bars. But short of closing your eyes and ears and mind, how do you avoid all of the ugly and unholy things in the world? Should I lock myself away in a false bastion of purity to avoid tempting myself or my brother? How, then, do I converse with those who don’t even desire my context on life if I can only speak to them of I will or won’t do? And what if, in all the effort to protect my weakness or that of others, I also close my heart?

I understand the position of those who believe Christians should only allow in what is holy and pure and that, conversely, they should preserve themselves against the polluting effects of the world. I was raised in that tradition. Perhaps it was just my peculiar up-bringing, but that tack seemed far more false in the end.

My childhood also left me with the sense that people don’t call Christian’s hypocrites because we act like everyone else. Rather they see us as false because we often insist on trying hide our weakness or tyranny by insisting we are acting on behalf of the Shepherd. Their disrespect for us and our message isn’t because we will or won’t sit in a cinema, but because we all to often refuse to sit down with publicans and prostitutes unless we let them know and they accept their position in the flock (they’re the one; we are the ninety-and-nine).

Quite frankly, I have a better time discussing Tarantino with the atheists whom I know than I do Tay-Sachs or the God-decreed genocides of the Old Testament. And for their part, many of them claim they would have less problems with me (i.e. those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ) if we didn’t worship love and forgiveness of Sundays, then advocate war and exploitation of our enemies Monday through Friday.

Jesus prayed that his followers would not be “of the world” just as he was not. But he also sent them into the world, just as he was sent. There is a difficulty there, a balance that must be found. But the honest search and struggle for that balance seems far less fraudulent (if perhaps more equivocal) and invites more fellowshi, than insisting there is only one way for a believer to be true to their faith.

David H.,

Great comments. Thanks for taking the time to make them.

David H. I second Pete’s thanks!

I said to my wife last week: ‘I’m a prude” and she responded without batting an eye “Yes, you are!” I love that woman and I love the Rabbit Heads for calling out prudes like me.

When it comes to topics of this type I’m reminded of this passage in Matthew 11 where Jesus says:

“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Am I too late to derail the train?

I’d like to know why Thomas equates capital punishment with revenge.

There’s a lot more I might like to say/ask about various posts, but someone here has to stand for brevity.