Film Flash: The Running Man

  

15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon)

Starts strong, like a sci-fi version of The Fugitive.  But mid-way it gets exponentially worse 

New Evangelizers Post: Is the Trinity in the Bible?

                                

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

The Trinity is the central dogma of our faith. It is the revelation of the ultimate reality of God Who is Three Persons, but One in being. In a sense, all other doctrines and dogmas flow from this paramount belief.

But is dogma of Trinity found in the Bible?

The answer would seem to obviously be “Yes,” since all Christians, even fundamentalists, believe in the Trinity. But the answer is a bit more complex.

First of all, the word “Trinity” is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. We also will not find the explicit description of God as three Co-Equal Persons in One God.

In the Old Testament, the focus is on God’s oneness and unity. He is called most often “King.” But He is also called at times Yahweh and Father. One of the most important prayers of the Hebrew people is “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone!” This is statement stands against the polytheism of the other religions of the day. This is a clear embrace of the monotheism of God’s revelation.

In the New Testament, the doctrine is also not explicitly stated. The formula of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” is found only three times in the New Testament (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, and 1 Peter 1:2). And while the name of all Three are invoked, their relationship is not clearly explained. Even the references to Jesus as “Son of God” are not clearly explicit in meaning a second Person of a Trinity. In Jesus’ day “Son of God” could have meant things like an angel or the entire nation of Israel. Paul connected “Son of God” to Christ’s resurrection. Mark connects it to His baptism. Matthew and Luke point to how He is born the “Son of God.”

So does that mean that the Trinity is not found in the Bible at all?

No, it does not mean that.

The Trinity is revealed in the Scriptures, even if it is not explicit.

First, it must be noted that reality of the Trinity is something that is experienced in the salvation of the Christian. In the post New Testament period, the believers had to understand the Scriptures in light of that experience of salvation. Particularly they had to answer the questions of how Christ and the Holy Spirit play a role in the saving power of God. It took several centuries and a number of Church councils until the dogma of Trinity became explicitly laid out. During that time, Christians reflected on how God revealed Himself as Trinity in the subtlety of Scripture.

In the Old Testament, God is spoken of as Father, which depicts Him as the Source of Life. But God is also spoken of as Word or Wisdom, which shows us His creative power at work in the world. He is depicted as Spirit, which falls upon His people and is filled with His redemptive power. Even though the Old Testament does not explicitly talk about three Persons in the Godhead, speaking of God in these ways lays the groundwork for speaking about Him as a Tripersonal God.

In the New Testament, we see this especially in the Gospel of John and its understanding of the Logos or Word. John wrote “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1:1). Throughout this Gospel in particular, Jesus’ unity with the Father and His Divinity are clearly established. Jesus says, “”I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30) And at the same time there is a clear distniction between Christ and the Father, as Jesus is always in relationship to the Father. As Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) wrote, “The discover of the dialogue within God led to the assumption of the presence in God of an “I” and a “You,” an element of relationship, of coexistent diversity and affinity, for which the concept of a persona absolutely dictated itself.” (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pg 182)

You can read the whole article here.

Film Flash: Predator - Badlands

 

15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon)

Enjoyable if you accept that it should be called "Marvel's PG-13 Predator." 

Trailer Time: Toy Story 5 - Teaser

Okay, this has me intrigued.

I am a big fan of the Toy Story franchise, but I did find Toy Story 4 underwhelming.  It wasn't a bad movie at all and it did have some interesting themes.  But it didn't feel like it really had something to say.

This movie seems like it has something to say.  

The tablet has the ability to rob the imagination of children and turn them into screen addicts.  This is an awful problem for kids who are being fed screens younger and younger.  The whole world of toys is one that is fueled by imagination.  You create stories in your mind that you bring to life in the palm of your hands.

The fact that this movie is tackling this issue in a creative way... like I said, I am at least intrigued.

Thoughts?

Film Review: Springsteen - Deliver Me From Nowhere

 

Sexuality/Nudity Mature

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Acceptable

I have to say in advance that I am not a fan of Bruce Springsteen.  I do not dislike the man or his music.  But I have never had the emotional connection to him that he seems to inspire in his fans.  This fact may be one of the reasons that I did not enjoy Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere.

It may also be the fact that the movie is not very good.

The story takes place in 1981.  Springsteen (Jeremy Allen White) has just come off an incredibly successful tour.  But he feels like he is losing something with all of the fame.  He wants to "find something real in all the noise."  So he temporarily moves back to New Jersey.  He begins a seemingly doomed relationship with a single-mother/waitress Faye (Odessa Young), while being haunted by bad memories of his abusive, alcoholic father (Stephen Graham).  Here in this emotional state, he works on what would be his "Nebraska" album: something more akin to a folk album than a pop/rock staple.  His manager Jon (Jeremy Strong) constantly fights the executives to help Bruce execute his vision, no matter how odd.  And Bruce is uncompromising to the point of sounding a little crazy.  The movie focuses on the artist trying to fight for his art in its purest sense.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that the performances are very good.  White is excellent as Bruce.  He makes him mostly affable and sympathetic, even as he keeps you at a distance.  And even as his behavior starts to wear on you. White's performance is still incredibly intense and interesting.  Strong has a good understated performance that balances out the artistic fire of Springsteen.  Paul Walter Hauser elevates any movie that he's in.  Here, he has a supporting part of one of Bruce's friends who has to become a makeshift sound engineer.  His everyman voice brings some much needed levity to the story.

But as good as the performances are, the film is slow and plodding.  While it was wise to focus only a small sliver of the singer's life, the story felt like it lacked focus and structure.  There were several times where I found the story more fatiguing that engaging, hoping that it would move the plot forward.

Sometimes you can dwell in a scene if it draws you in.  Here the music should have been the hook.  But this is a musical where the music is more of an idea than an experience.  Bohemian Rhapsody did a good job of encorporating Freddie Mercury's music throughout in thematically strong ways (e.g. "Who Wants to Live Forever" as he realizes his HIV diagnosis).  A Complete Unknown made me appreciate Bob Dylan's music even though I was mostly unfamiliar.  But I never really connected to Springsteen's songs in this film.  

And I do have to say that I am quite tired of the "tortured artist" trope, where we are supposed to excuse to boorish behavior of main character because of his artistic genius.  I have never liked this idea and it always wore thin with me.  I remember in movies like Amadeus or Immortal Beloved, the musician treated others horribly.  We see the same thing here, though not to the same extreme.  Bruce leads Faye on and says something to the effect of, "I can't love you more than I do now."  And yes, there is some brokenness from his childhood that causes this, but it feels more like self-indulgent crap.  He's not like most people, you see?  He's special.  And because he is special, he can't go around committing himself to people like us normies do.

The movie wants to be about big things like trauma, art, forgiveness, and depression.  But it never really gets beyond the surface.  I think the filmmakers wanted the music to do a lot of the heavy lifting, but they miscalculated how much depth it would provide.

When the movie ended, I didn't feel like I really came to understand Bruce Springsteen any better than when I walked into the theater.  The movie treats him with such kid gloves that it never really tries to take to deep a look.  I am so glad that they cut a line from the movie that was in the trailer where Jon says that Bruce's music "is going to repair the world."  It's this near-hagiographic reverence for the man and his music that is much more of a barrier than and opening into his life.

In the end, this movie ends up in the place it wants to deliver you from: 

Nowhere.

Trailer Time: Michael - Teaser

After watching the disappointing Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere, I am hungering for a good music biopic.  Michael Jackson's story is rife with drama and amazing music.  I don't know if they are going to try to make him look good, bad, or something in the middle.

Hearing the music and seeing the set pieces made me very nostalgic for the 1980's.  Jaafaar Jackson sounds like Michael, but in the one scene where he talks, it feels a lot more like an impersonation than a fully lived-in character.  As much as I didn't like Baz Luhrman's Elvis, Austin Butler did an amazing job of going beyond the caricature and creating a fully realized character who was at the same time larger-than-life.

I need to see more before I get too interested.

Thoughts?

New Evangelizers Post: Sleeping Beauties

                               

I have a new article up at NewEvangelizers.com.  

Yesterday we celebrated the feast of All Souls.

On this day we remember those who have gone before us in death and pray for their quick release from Purgatory. But it also a day for a memento mori where we remember our own death. For all of its macabre trappings, the festival of Halloween at least gets us thinking in this direction. This is not meant to a morbid or maudlin exercise, but one that gives us wisdom. As the Scripture says, “Teach us to count our days aright, that we may gain wisdom of heart.” (Psalm 90:12).

Death is the destination all of us are headed. The pastor at church told the story about a vacation he had with some brother priests. They heard of a town where there was some good restaurants and recreation so that got in the car and put the address into the GPS. But something was typed out incorrectly, because when the GPS said, “You have arrived at your destination,” they were parked in front of a cemetery. The pastor said to his friends, “Well, it’s not entirely wrong.”

One day we are going to end up in the grave. We do not know how much time will be afforded us. If I live as long as my mother did, I have less than 20 years left on this Earth. But that is no guarantee. I often come to prayer asking God to change me into the man He is calling to me. But if I know that my time is getting short, I will take the task much more seriously. I remember being a student and putting off projects until the last minute. If we were given extra time I would rarely use it to do more work. Instead, I would put the task off even more. But now that I am older and hopefully wiser, I will get to the task at hand before time runs out.

But even that phrase, “time runs out,” is not an entirely accurate description of what lies ahead. Because the grave is not our final stop. And I don’t mean simply the afterlife where our souls go up to heaven. I mean that even our bodies will not permanently rest in the grave.

Pope Leo XIV recently stated, “Christians do not call burial places ‘necropolises’, that is, ‘cities of the dead,’ but ‘cemeteries,’ which literally means ‘sleeping places,’ places where one rests, awaiting the resurrection.”

“Necropolis” is a Greek word that reflects the pre-Christian thought on death. Going into the grave was a final goodbye and the dead were placed in these “cities” because that is where they would permanently reside. No matter how well you fought the battle of life, death was always going to be the final victor. But it was the early Christians who first used koimeterion to describe their burial cites. Instead of being cities where the dead will reside forever, koimeterion (“cemetary”) is closer translation as “dormitory.” The image is that it is a place of rest before you wake up at the dawn of a new day.

What an audacity our Christian ancestors had!

You can read the whole article here.