Page 3540 – Christianity Today (2024)

942259

If you want to see a great film adaptation of Jules Verne’s novel, Around the World in 80 Days, check out the 1956 version* starring David Niven as Phileas Fogg. If you want to see an awful adaptation of Verne’s classic novel, go to your local theater and watch this 2004 version. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

80 Days, directed by Frank Coraci, clocks in at an excruciating 120 minutes. For those two hours, I followed Phileas Fogg (British comedian Steve Coogan), Passepartout (martial arts master Jackie Chan), and Monique La Roche (Hollywood newcomer Cecile De France) through title card after title card of cities (Paris, China, San Francisco) all the while wishing that Jules Verne hadn’t included such a lengthy itinerary in his novel.

To be fair, 80 Days is not an easy story to film. Verne wrote a novel in which the story and characters traversed several continents and met a wealth of diverse people in a wealth of odd situations. Verne also incorporated his fascination with science by writing of Fogg’s great inventions and ideas—things that would be difficult to put to film convincingly, even in our high–tech world of Computer Generated Images (CGI).

However, this film version does maintain the book’s basic premise in that members of an elite English club challenge Fogg to travel around the world in, you guessed it, 80 days. Fogg accepts the challenge with the understanding that, if he wins, he can assume the title of Minister of Science within England’s Royal Academy. If he loses, he must forfeit his right to invent and he must steer clear of the Academy. Note here the first of many departures from the original story. In the novel, Fogg’s wager is 20,000 pounds, not necessarily his reputation and lifestyle as an inventor.

The second, and more glaring, departure from Verne’s novel is Jackie Chan as Passepartout, Fogg’s “French” valet (the 1956 version featured a memorable performance from Mexico native Cantinflas as the quirky sidekick). Chan’s Passepartout has stolen the Jade Buddha from the Bank of England and must return the Buddha to his small Chinese village in order to save his people. As Passepartout runs from the police, he conveniently meets up with Fogg, who takes Passepartout under his wing as his personal valet. The two then begin their adventure ’round the world.

And what an exhausting adventure it is. 80 Days forces you to live in a world of extremes. It would seem that each of the film’s actors resolved to create one dimensional, over–the–top caricatures. Coogan channels Robin Williams’ Flubber performance for inspiration for his distracted and idiot savant Fogg. Chan overreacts to every stimulus in the film, usually resulting in a choreographed fight scene (OK, I admit the fight scenes were pretty cool, but honestly, just go rent Rumble in the Bronx). And, De France puts on her best damsel in distress/cheerleader face to complicate matters and encourage the gang, respectively.

It’s precisely because I spent the entire time at the movie’s frothy surface that I found I didn’t care what happened to the characters. When a movie fails to acknowledge human relationships (and I’d like a bit more than La Roche’s “We care because we’re friends” quips), the movie fails to engage the audience. 80 Days proves that 2 hours of chaos and “eye–popping special effects” do not entertain the masses.

Essentially, 80 Days is a vehicle for Chan’s creative fight powers. So, Chan fans might like this movie—especially the battle between the Ten Tigers and the Black Scorpions; that scene stirred me from my 80 Days haze long enough to get me through the rest of the movie.

I was amazed at how little actually happens for a movie with so much action. Sadly, the fast pace and ridiculousness of the film prevented numerous opportunities for more redemptive plotlines. I would have liked to see serious (or even normal) exchanges between Fogg and Passepartout as well as between Fogg and La Roche. Verne’s material is adventurous and witty, but it also holds great capacity for character development, and that’s exactly what this film avoided.

* The 1956 version includes Georges Melies’ fascinating 1902 film, Le Voyage dans la Lune (The Voyage to the Moon). This short is worth the cost of the rental/purchase alone.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Did you enjoy this adaptation of Jules Verne’s classic novel? Have you read the novel? How might you have adapted the story? Is Hollywood “obligated” to stick to the original story?
2. Passepartout lied to Fogg in order to get the Jade Buddha back to his village and save his people. Was that deception acceptable? Why or why not? Does the end ever justify the means?
3. Fogg places a great importance on traveling, saying he’s seen great things and learned much. Do you believe that traveling is important? What are the benefits to learning about other cultures?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Around the World in 80 Days is rated PG for “action violence, some crude humor and mild language.” Jackie Chan’s choreographed fight scenes account for most of the action violence, much like other Chan films. There are several sexual undertones, including the flirting between Fogg and La Roche (at one point, Fogg stares at La Roche’s legs) and Passepartout losing his pants. A boat captain shows how a shark bit off both of his “nipples.” There’s a running gag of Fogg wearing women’s clothing.

Photos © Copyright Walt Disney Pictures

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffrey Overstreetfrom Film Forum, 06/24/04

Jackie Chan’s fight scenes are once again winning cheers this week as director Frank Coraci’s adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days comes to the big screen. But only a few of those critics are willing to give their approval to the movie as a whole.

Fans of the Jules Verne novel of the same name may be bewildered by the movie’s lack of resemblance to it. British comedian Steve Coogan (Coffee and Cigarettes, 24 Hour Party People) plays a nutty inventor who teams up with a kung–fu–fighting sidekick to travel the world in a flying machine in order to win a wager. The film features numerous celebrity cameos, including the last big screen performance by Arnold Schwarzenegger before his metamorphosis into the governor of California.

But in spite of its all–star cast, as Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) notes in his review, there are some distracting holes in this version of the plot: “Without a doubt, the best thing about [the film] is the fight scenes … the best fight scenes in any Jackie Chan Hollywood buddy movie to date. They’re actually so good, it’s a shame there had to be that annoying filler about a race to circumnavigate the globe.” He concludes, “The final act, in particular, is one of the most aggressively stupid things I’ve seen in a long time. Around the World is lamer as a movie than any of Jackie’s previous U.S. films, even The Tuxedo.”

Mary Lasse (Christianity Today Movies) says, “If you want to see a great film adaptation of Jules Verne’s novel, Around the World in 80 Days, check out the 1956 version starring David Niven as Phileas Fogg. If you want to see an awful adaptation of Verne’s classic novel, go to your local theater and watch this 2004 version. But don’t say I didn’t warn you. 80 Days proves that two hours of chaos and ‘eye–popping special effects’ do not entertain the masses.”

Bob Waliszewski (Plugged In) writes, “It had the potential to be one of the year’s foremost films for the whole family. But it didn’t use it fully, or faithfully. It’s funny, chockfull of action, clever and engaging for all ages. It’s also sprinkled with enough problematic content to prompt me to wave a yellow flag in front of families considering making the journey.”

Brett Willis (Christian Spotlight) criticizes it for “making fun of historical figures. Legally, you can say almost anything you want about a deceased person. But that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate.” He concludes, however, that this movie is “probably one of the ‘least bad’ choices of the summer for a family outing.”

A couple of critics gave the film higher marks. Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) says, “Unlike its predecessor, this film won’t garner any awards, and adults aren’t likely to be impressed. But, with a few exceptions, it is decent entertainment for the family.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says it’s “an enjoyable and fanciful family film. The film is well paced and certainly entertaining in a family friendly sort of way.”

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) calls it “an entertaining, continent–hopping spectacle that is both campy and clever—and, as an added attraction—quite fun.”

Mainstream critics find it frivolous and full of hot air.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

"I need advice," Dave began our conversation. Dave is like many pastors who call Metanoia Ministries for counsel about how to handle conflict in their church.

Dave told me about Tom, a founding member and retired businessman in his church. "He acts like he is the boss and I am his employee," Dave explained, "constantly telling me what I did or said wrong."

"Well, how do you respond?" I asked.

"I'd like to tell him off," Dave admitted. "But I'm trying to extend grace. I pulled him aside after service last week and said I'd like to talk to him. I mentioned that his words to me were discouraging. Tom immediately became defensive, telling me he is a 'straight-shooter.' He said that I needed more 'backbone,' or I would not last long as pastor.

"This morning Tom sent me an e-mail warning me that he will be dropping by later today to discuss 'serious concerns about my preaching and leadership,'" Dave told me. "My stomach is tied up in knots. I know I need to confront Tom, but he has a history of being argumentative and manipulative.

"What do I do?" Dave asked me. "How do you confront a critical and defensive person?"

We talked on the phone awhile longer. I explained how defensive people are good at seeing the fault of others while failing to see their own. When confronted, defensive people will always find ways to disagree. If they cannot win they will feign hurt, blaming you for "judging" their hearts.

"Dave," I said, "to confront a defensive person like Tom, you must first understand why he needs to be defensive." I told Dave to spend some time in prayer asking God for wisdom and insight.

We talked about other encounters people had with Tom. I explained that often people like Tom put on an outward bravado in order to mask a deep insecurity. They may be afraid of close relationships. Being critical and defensive lets them change the conversation away from their own inadequacies to the failure of others. Defensive people instinctively set up conversations to protect themselves. "Understanding why he is doing this will help you minister to Tom's inner soul while correcting his outward behavior," I said.

I reminded Dave that to be redemptive, a leader must discern, describe, and lovingly invite the person into change.

A simple rule is this: never confront power with power, confront power with loving truth.

Here are seven steps for encountering a defensive person.

1. Move toward, not away. Your first inclination will be to move away, to ignore, or to isolate him. This is wrong. Always move toward a defensive person, not away. Defensive people want to be distant; they want to think in extremes. Moving away provides emotional distance for the person to hide; it confirms this suspicion that you will not listen, that he is right and you are wrong.

2. Engage relationally. Greet the critical person with a question like "What do you do for fun?" Whatever he says, make a date to do that with him. Show interest in him as a person. Ask about his marriage and his family. Typically, defensive people have great difficulty giving and receiving love, which is why they elevate opinion and loyalty over relationship and reconciliation. This will be evident in their friendships, marriage, and family. Empathize with the trail of broken relationships you are likely to find.

3. Bless and affirm. Jesus said, "Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28). Defensive people only know negative affirmation. Bless and affirm his gifts. Recognize that he believes his cause is right and just.

4. Be direct. While affirming, state truth directly. Speak to Tom personally. Do not respond by e-mail. And when the language becomes hurtful, I suggested that Dave say: "What you have to say, Tom, is important. But the way you say it causes problems."

5. Find agreement. The greatest mistake leaders make is to engage a defensive person on issues of disagreement. Arguing with a defensive person always ends up in frustration and confusion. In fact, the problem escalates as each side responds to the accusation of the other. Therefore, find facts, methods, or events where you agree. When wrong, apologize. Allow Tom's explanation to be one possible conclusion then focus on fruit, not facts.

6. Follow the fruit. Scripture tells us to test everything by spiritual fruit (Gal 5:22-23). Confront Tom about fruit, I recommended, and again, be direct. "I am experiencing you as angry (or defensive) right now, Tom. Are you angry?" When Tom insists that he is right, it might be good to ask, "What would we expect to see if that were true?" or "If God's Spirit were present, what would it look like?" Ask the defensive person to describe what the fruit of his work looks like.

7. Invite submission. Ask the defensive person to walk with you in mutual submission. Tell him you want to follow Christ in being humble, leadable and teachable. Ask if he wants this too. Suggest ways you and he can have a reciprocal relationship—one that shows respect and honor to each other. Ask "Are you willing to grow?" Set boundaries based upon your agreement.

In the end, Tom may still be critical and defensive toward Dave. Habits are hard to break. "Or," I told Dave, "you might win over a valuable friend."

Jim Van Yperen is executive director of Metanoia Ministries, a non-profit Christian organization serving the church in leadership formation and conflict reconciliation. Jim is the author of Making Peace: A Guide to Overcoming Church Conflict (Moody Press, 2002).

DIALOGUE: DAVID SEDARIS

Contributor to the New Yorker and Chicago Public Radio’s This American Life, humorist David Sedaris has just published a new collection of short stories called Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. I talked with him recently over cake at Cozy Corner in Oak Park, Illinois.

Books&Culture: Why do you avoid reading reviews of your books?

David Sedaris: With every previous book I’ve called the publisher and said, You can’t let this book come out. I’ll give you your money back, please don’t let this happen. But I didn’t this time, and I think it’s because the majority of the stories were published in the New Yorker. I don’t trust myself but I do trust them. It’s just given me great confidence. I got a bad review yesterday and my publicist warned me not to open this magazine that I’d never open anyway. I went a radio program yesterday and I was thinking about it the whole time I was getting interviewed. And then I thought, Wait a minute, I write for the New Yorker. That somehow made it OK; if they don’t like my book, they’ll just have to take that up with the New Yorker.

You’ve resisted being labeled a “writer,” going as far as to list “typist” as your occupation. Do you still?

I’m OK with it now. I think with your fifth book you can use the label. The thing is, when you write humorous stuff people just kind of assume that you dictate your stories into a tape recorder. They don’t really think that you chose this word over this one, that you really struggled with the construction of this as a story. Sometimes I want to say, Excuse me, but I rewrote that 16 times, and I put a lot of thought into using that word as opposed to that one, and you may notice that I’ve not used the same word twice in that paragraph, and there’s a rhythm to these sentences. But if people are going to buy the book or show up at the bookstore for the touring stops, how much do I need?

You taught writing courses at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. How did you like teaching?

Most of my students were planning to be painters, not writers, and they just had to take a certain amount of English classes and were looking for an easy A. I had one student who was incredibly talented, and she deserved a better teacher than me, because I wasn’t a teacher. I don’t know why a story works. If something’s awful, I don’t know where to start. It takes a very patient person to say, let’s work on the sentences for a while, then let’s work on the storytelling. But I don’t know those tricks.

There’s a story I wrote in [my latest] book about drowning a mouse. My editor at GQ said, ‘You need to cut out this stuff about the townspeople talking about the skeleton in the attic, because it doesn’t really go anywhere.’ And then Ira [Glass, host of This American Life] said, ‘Oh no, you need to keep that, because that establishes that you’re a logical person. You did not believe the story about the skeleton, and then when you’re afraid of zombies and drown the mouse and people think, “But he was logical on page one!”‘ My editor at the New Yorker said the same thing. And I didn’t know that; I probably would have cut it like my [first] editor told me to.

I’ve never had a natural talent for writing. I started writing when I was 20 and knew enough to keep to myself the horrible garbage I was writing. If I write something that works I can’t think, I need to do that again,

because I don’t know how.

How has doing public readings and recordings changed the way you write?

It changes the rhythm of the sentences. I look at stories in Naked that I never got a chance to read out loud. And now when I record the book on tape I think, ‘When did I expect to breathe in this sentence?’ It’s not built in. And in this [latest] book the breath is always built in. There’s a new story I haven’t read out loud yet, I’ll probably read it in a bookstore tomorrow. I had to turn it in already to be published in an anthology, and I hated to turn it in before I had a chance to read it out loud, because when I read it tomorrow, I’m going to find out so much. I’m going to learn that this doesn’t work and this doesn’t work and I need a new ending, and I need more dialogue here, and I don’t need that, I’ve already made that point.

How often do you laugh while you’re writing?

It’s not too often. It might happen twice a year. But I like it when it happens. It happened a few weeks ago when I was writing something and I wound up not using it. I guess I just surprised myself. In real life I find lots of things funny, but I laugh when they happen. And then when I write them down I don’t laugh because I’ve already laughed.

Your writing is very eccentric. Can you identify influences on your writing style?

I’m more influenced by things that I hear than things that I read. There’s an English guy named Alan Bennett who’s a national treasure in England [where Sedaris now lives]. He has a lot of things on the BBC. Whenever I listen to anything of his on tape, his voice gets in my head and I just have to realize that for the next three weeks, everything I write is going to be third-rate Alan Bennett.

Last year I was reading a lot of Patricia Highsmith stories. I’m not a mystery person at all but there’s something in her sort of old-fashioned sense of description that affected a couple stories in [my latest] book. There’s a story in [my] book about going to the Apple Pan in Los Angeles. The description of the men, the description of the counter, that was all Patricia Highsmith. I wouldn’t have written it that way or been that descriptive if I hadn’t listened to her.

Or Ira. I was listening to This American Life and Davy Rothbart did a story about going with his mom, who was deaf, to someplace in Brazil so she could be healed by a faith-healer. I think it was the best thing Ira’s ever had on his show. That’s the kind of thing you listen to and then you think, I’m going to do something, I don’t know what it is, but I want to do something that could possibly move people the way that that did. I think that’s partly why you read: to feel that things are possible. I don’t mean in a jealous way, like I want to do something even better, but just to think for one moment that you could affect people and to realize, Well, gee, I have the opportunity.

PLACES & CULTURE

From the Los Angeles Times:

ROSETTENVILLE,South Africa – When apartheid ended a decade ago, this was a tidy, all-white suburb of 20,000 squeezed between the sprawling black township of Soweto and the economic engine of white rule, Johannesburg. But the residents who converged on a local school to vote in elections [last month] reflected, like so much of South Africa, a nation transformed. Now a teeming suburb of 50,000, Rosettenville is a racial melange. Thousands have moved here from Soweto and other black and mixed-race townships, often buying homes from departing whites. Joining them have been Nigerians, Zimbabweans and Mozambicans, lured by the post-apartheid detente with the rest of Africa. … Whites and blacks live side by side here in equal numbers and relative harmony. But crime has escalated, housing prices have sunk, schools are overcrowded … and joblessness shadows the streets of modest homes.

From the New York Times:

PRINCETON, N.J. — More than 70 springs have come and gone since the first [trees] succumbed, but grieving friends … have never stopped searching for survivors of one of the worst ecological calamities in American history. They stalk damp backwoods and prowl deserted country roads looking for rare American elm trees that have somehow managed to ward off Dutch elm disease, which spread in successive waves across much of the country beginning in the 1930’s, killing more than 77 million elms in the biological blink of an eye. [They have found] a majestic giant standing in a prominent spot in Princeton since before it became a cemetery in 1757. About 100 feet tall, this noble elm bows gracefully over the corner of Witherspoon and Wiggins Streets, not far from Princeton University.

• Related from B&C:Reading Trees

WEEKLY DIGEST

• Are scientific visuals science or art? The X-ray of the human skeleton, the double helix model of DNA molecule—are these aesthetic or purely functional? The question is pertinent to Felice Frankel, MIT research scientist and author of Envisioning Science: The Design and Craft of the Science Image, and Eric Heller, whose photographs of microscopic phenomena were exhibited at the National Academy of Science in Washington, D.C., says the Boston Globe. “What’s primary for me about my photographs is that they communicate scientific information,” says Frankel. They may “happen to be beautiful … but I feel I’m revealing the beauty that’s already there.” Article What the article should have clarified is 1) whether art’s perceived threat to empiricism is its possibility of “multiple readings” (as the Globe puts it), and 2) how art communicates and informs differently than the scientific method (in other words, how is there truth in beauty as well as in findings?)
• Speaking of truth claims, it’s a bad time for creeds, says Martin Marty in his Sightings newsletter. Thanks to the myriad distortions of The Da Vinci Code, ancient creeds are considered to be “irrelevant, repressive clampings-down by villains and stupefiers,” Marty says. Thank goodness, he says, for Luke Timothy Johnson’s book The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters, and for an article on the book by Peter Steinfels in the New York Times. Creeds, Johnson says, provide a “clear and communal sense of identity” in an incoherent age. Besides, says Marty, “anti-creedalism usually issues in another form of creedalism.” Entry

Earlier in Sightings: Prayer requests and privacy concerns

• Speaking of belief systems, it’s important to see Al-Qaeda as an ideology, says Jason Burke in the current issue of Foreign Policy. “The mere mention of al Qaeda conjures images of an efficient terrorist network guided by a powerful criminal mastermind,” Burke says. “Yet al Qaeda is more lethal as an ideology”—Al-Qaedaism—”than as an organization.” The name Al Qaeda is merely the FBI’s convenient appropriation of a common noun in order to “apply conventional antiterrorism laws to an adversary that was in no sense a traditional terrorist or criminal organization,” Burke says. Instead, Islamic militants whom we call Al Qaeda are interested in sporadic, widespread, loosely organized disruption of Westernization. Burke corrects nine myths about Al Qaeda. Article

Earlier: bin Laden and company: “one fringe of a small fraction of a minority … of Islamists” (second item here)
Elsewhere: The plan for transfer of power in Iraq, from The Week

• Was it really Seattle—home of Microsoft and wi-fi-outfitted Starbucks—that hosted a conference last month called “Information, Silence, and Sanctuary”? It was, and it attracted diverse advocates of what it is now being called information environmentalism, the Christian Science Monitor reported. In a world crowded with cell phones, laptops, ubiquitous advertising, and other “informational pollutants,” “we’re kind of numbing ourselves,” said a professor who used to work for Xerox’s technology think tank. “Our current forms of media are creating mushy minds,” says another. Article Unfortunately, the sentiments of these gatherers tend to fall into a vague advocacy of simplification for its own sake. As I wrote in this B&C story about technology and community, Quentin Schultze better articulates the importance of traditional systems of revealed wisdom as an alternative to our obsessive informationism.

Related: The brief history of the term information environmentalism, from WordSpy.com

• If you write or create art, you may not want to read Joan Acocella’s piece in the current New Yorker on the history of writer’s block. “Writers have probably suffered over their work ever since they first started signing it, but it was not until the early nineteenth century that creative inhibition became an actual issue in literature,” Acocella says. This is because writers had long regarded their work as “rational, purposeful activity which they controlled.” It was the English Romantics who came to see poetry as “the product of ‘some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind.'” Inevitably, writer’s block is now considered a mental health issue. “Blocked writers are now being treated with antidepressants such as Prozac, though some report that the drugs tend to eliminate their desire to write together with their regret over not doing so.” No word on how long it took Acocella to write this piece. Article

Elsewhere:
Why poetry readings are boring, from the London Independent
Ten clichés of fiction set in the Pacific Northwest, from The Stranger
A mathematical model of New Yorker fiction selection, from the New York Times

• Miscellaneous:What was going on at the G8 summit, from the London Guardian – The legacy of the O.J. trial, ten years later, from Slate – Detroit Zoo gives away elephants to relieve their arthritis – Wild boars are back in Britain, from the Guardian – Plastic debris cluttering world’s oceans, from the Washington Post – Why the Car Talk guys should go easy the humanities, from the Boston Globe – Evangelicals and Hollywood, post-Passion (parts 1 and 2), from columnist Terry Mattingly (also see second item here and CT piece here).
• Previous/Archive/About/Feedback/Links/CT blog

Nathan Bierma is editorial assistant at Books & Culture. He writes the weekly “On Language” column for the Chicago Tribune.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

This is a great, panoramic saga of a book. Winner of the Nordic Council Literature Prize in 2002 and now arriving in the States in a fine translation by Kenneth Steven, The Half Brother is reminiscent of Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections—but more engaging and better crafted.

Barnum Nilsen—a pudgy, Tourette Syndrome-afflicted, borderline midget—is the narrator. He’s a perpetually inebriated screenwriter who cannot sell his brilliant work. How do we know it’s really brilliant—that he isn’t merely a self-deluding wannabe? Well, he’s asked, at the end of the book, to write a screenplay about his half brother Fred, the one born in a taxi, the boxer, the dyslexic, the sometimes aphasic elder brother conceived during a violent rape on May 8, 1945—when the town was celebrating the end of World War II. And we’re convinced that this bruising and sorrowful novel we’ve just finished reading is the result.

Barnum and his half brother Fred live with their great-grandmother, The Old One, a former silent film star; their grandmother, Boletta, who works at The Telegraph Exchange; their mother, Vera, who is in stubborn denial of all things unpleasant; and Barnum’s elusive father, Arnold Nilsen, whose visits are sporadic and unpredictable. In fact, the men in Barnum’s life are ephemeral at best—Boletta calls them the Night Men. The Old One’s lover disappeared on an Arctic expedition to Greenland; and the only thing that remains of him is a lengthy letter found in his coat pocket, which the family reads so frequently, they have it memorized. Boletta no longer waits for her man; instead she souses her memories at the North Pole, a dive where the beers are colder than ice. Vera meets Arnold Nilsen, a diminutive con man who drives a Buick and wins her heart. They marry and produce Barnum—who’s named after none other than the P.T. Barnum of the Barnum and Bailey Circus.

In a home where no one can be trusted to stick around, lying is a way of life, elegantly formulated in the circus motto Barnum learns from his father: Mundus vult decipi. Ergo decipiatur. “The world will be taken in, thus it is deceived.” Barnum—who wears platform shoes and keeps his hair curly to appear taller—embraces his role as a storyteller, to protect his brother Fred’s secrets and to weave sense into his own life. When given the opportunity to make psychological connections in the book, he doesn’t. He simply abandons his ideas or thoughts and plunges forward with the narrative. And we forgive him for it. We understand that the truth might scar, might sear its way, like lightning, down through the soles of our feet.

The many references to fiction (Knut Hamsun’s book Hunger, for example) and films (starring the famously short Humphrey Bogart) and even an odd, fragmentary screenplay by Barnum at the end of the book (detailing a horrible childhood experience) emphasize the necessity of imagination, that innate process of forming hints of truth out of haphazard pieces of questionable material. We are left on the cusp of unbelief—did these things really happen?

It is a tribute to Saabye Christensen that the book—full of flashbacks and asides and anecdotes—reads as smoothly as it does. It would read even faster had he paragraphed the dialogue out, but then again, that would have doubled the length of an already weighty book.

Lars Saabye Christensen is one of Norway’s leading contemporary authors. He was born in Oslo in 1953, and at the age of 24, he published his first novel. His fame spread with the publication of his novel Beatles in 1984, a story of four boys growing up in the shadow of their pop icons during the volatile Vietnam era.

Most novelists cannot rival Saabye Christensen’s sensitive treatment of his flawed characters. Never do we detect an overbearing, omniscient authorial presence. The characters’ voices and actions speak for themselves. But Saabye Christensen isn’t the only one who deserves credit. This behemoth of a book must have been lovingly translated. For that, we have Kenneth Steven to thank. He writes in a translator’s note: “All translation is a compromise; there are inevitable losses in bringing a richly woven literary text from its native tongue. It is not the thousands of words that pose the difficulty, it is the single words—the tiny words that have been chosen by the author for their resonance, for their resemblance to other words in the language, their interplay with different elements of the text.”

Rightly said. In the end, there are not enough words, not enough precise ones, to translate all the secrets of our lives.

Elissa Elliott is writer in Rochester, Minnesota.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

The Half Brother is available from Amazon.com and other book retailers.

Most reviews of the English translation of The Half Brother have so far appeared in the U.K. The book has been reviewed in The Telegraph, The Guardian, and twice in The Independent. It has also been reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle.

Arcade Publishing‘s site has a bit of information, but not much, on the book.

Motown legend Smokey Robinson, one-time leader of The Miracles (“Ooh Baby Baby,” “The Tracks of My Tears,” “The Tears of a Clown”), started out in early soul and R&B genres in 1958, and has scored hit singles in every decade since. But aside from some scattered concert tours in recent years, Robinson, 64, is more often speaking at churches and charities, making his Christian faith more public. And now along comes his first spiritually themed album, Food for the Spirit, ending a five-year recording hiatus. We recently had a nice chat with Robinson, just a day after Motown’s latest televised anniversary special. Here’s what the member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame had to say …

What are your feelings when you’re able to reunite with the Motown family?

Smokey RobinsonThat’s always wonderful, man! One thing I can say about the Motown acts is that we were a family. That’s not a myth. And we still have that same attitude, those of us who are still here. When we see each other, it was like it was just yesterday because we have that love and that brotherhood and that sisterhood that has lasted throughout the ages. It’s always good to see any of them, especially those you haven’t seen in a long time.

What’s your relationship with Motown, despite working on non-Motown projects?

RobinsonMy relationship is everlasting. Once you’re a Motown artist, you’re always a Motown artist. People still look at Michael Jackson as being a Motown artist. Once you’re a Motown artist, that’s your stigmatism, and I was there from the very first day. Motown will always be a heavy-duty part of my life because those are my roots. I don’t ever balk at being considered a Motown person, because Motown is the greatest musical event that ever happened in the history of music.

Those records we recorded back in the early days, they’re played all the time now. The majority of them would be hits if they were released today. That’s because we did not set out to make black music. We set out to make quality music that everyone could enjoy and listen to. I think we’ve accomplished that and way beyond.

How’s it feel to be a legend?

RobinsonYou know what, I’m probably one of the most blessed people there’s ever been, and I thank God for it. Through his grace, I’m allowed to live this life that I love so much. As a kid, this is what I wanted my life to be. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever dare to dream that it would be this.

Tell me about the new direction you’re forging with an inspirational record.

RobinsonOriginally I was not writing songs for myself. I know everybody in the gospel world just like I know everybody in the secular world. Yolanda Adams is my sister [in Christ]. She’s my friend just like Kirk Franklin, The Winans and Shirley Caesar. I was originally writing these songs for them, but eventually the Lord impressed upon me to sing them for myself. And as most people probably do not know, I have this wonderful relationship with God and with Jesus. I’ve been speaking at churches for years, as well as juvenile jails, rehabs and hospitals, and I always talk about my faith. That is a declaration of my relationship with God.

You’d said this is an “inspirational” record rather than a gospel record. Why?

RobinsonThe only thing that is different are the words, because the music is the same as I’ve always done. I didn’t want to try to be gospel because I’m not. There’s so many wonderful gospel people out there, and I don’t necessarily want to compete with those people. So I wanted to sing inspirational music, and that’s exactly how I approached it—only the words have been changed to declare my relationship with God.

What’s the inspiration behind the title, Food for the Spirit?

RobinsonAs human beings, we’re very materialistic and have all this stuff—furs and cars and diamonds and money. We’re very physical creatures, and we worry about how we look sometimes more than our spiritual selves. Now I’m a believer in the hereafter, so I know that when you leave this place, none of the stuff you’ve accumulated is going. It will still be here and even these bodies, they’re going to turn back to dust and ashes. The only thing you’re taking out of here is your spirit and your soul, so we need to be conscious to try and develop that part of ourselves, because we’re all spiritual creatures.

What has been your road to faith?

RobinsonI have known God all my life since I was a small child. My mother was a churchgoing lady, so I always heard about God at home. Even as a child I wouldn’t do certain things because I thought God was watching me. I didn’t find out until later in my life who Jesus is, when I heard my mom and her friends talking about Jesus. All I knew as a child was that Jesus was the son of God, but I didn’t know Jesus personally until I became an adult. I’ve had that relationship and that saving grace for a long time in my life, so it’s not something new for me.

How do you share that in your speaking sessions?

RobinsonIt’s often been said that when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, then you’re saved. But when I go speak I tell people that “those of you who accept Jesus are saved, but you’re not safe.” I go to rehabs and talk to people who have been in there 40 or 50 times and they’ve done drugs for 20 years. I tell them if you don’t get your spiritual self together, you’re going to come here 51 times.

There’s a perception that entertainers are especially prone to falling into drug use. Why do you think that’s the case?

RobinsonCome on man, you’re being naïve here! That has no relationship to show business whatsoever. Drugs are in every walk of life—doctors, lawyers, preachers, the guy who works for IBM, teenagers on the street, teenagers in school. Show business is not exclusive to drugs!

I agree, but there certainly seem to be a lot of stars cracking under the pressure, perhaps more than someone who doesn’t live life in the spotlight.

RobinsonYou just live under a microscope [as a celebrity]. I could be out in front of a public building, and some guy could go out and relieve himself in front of everybody, and nobody would say anything. But if I go out there and spit, it’s going to be in the newspaper. So you live under this scrutiny. But to say that people in show business are the heaviest users, that’s bullcrap, man!

How can the media play a role in cutting down on the scrutiny?

RobinsonBy letting people have normal lives. When artists are doing something to entertain or making a film or concert, it’s okay to take pictures of them. But when they’re trying to live their private lives, let them have a private life.

How have you avoided temptation, despite the distractions of your profession?

RobinsonYou know what, life is full of temptations. We’re all going to be victims of temptation at several points in our lives. The beauty of Jesus is when you do fall into temptation, he’s there to pick you up and he has already paid the price for you to fall.

Learn more about Smokey Robinson and his latest happenings at www.smokeyrobinson.net. Click here to read a review of his album, Food for the Spirit. You can listen to sound clips and buy his music at Amazon.com

Halfway through The Chronicles of Riddick, the title character (Vin Diesel) leads a ragtag group of convicts across the surface of the planet Crematoria where the daylight temperature is 700 degrees. (Get it? Crematoria!)

As they make their dash, sunrise hits (which seems to happen about every seven minutes on Crematoria). Sunlight rolls across the planet and nips at the group’s heels as they run. It’s an impressive sight. However, the suspense is deadened because, it turns out, the heroes can avoid the 700-degree heat by ducking in the shade. In fact, when a character is trapped in the sunlight on a cliffside, all Riddick has to do is swing down on a rope and pull her under a rocky outcropping. In the safety of the shade, the hero poses as smoke rises from his shirt. All you can think—besides sunscreen jokes—is: Wow, isn’t Riddick cool?

The race against the sun typifies this sci-fi actioner: it’s big, pretty to look at, and doesn’t make much sense. But it also proves the major selling point of both The Chronicles of Riddick and its predecessor, Pitch Black. When the original space thriller was released in 2000, the general consensus was: “Eh. Average action film, but wow, isn’t Riddick cool?” Obviously, writer and director David Twohy and producer Diesel thought the same thing. In this first of three planned sequels—especially in one key scene—you realize they want to turn Riddick into a Conan the Barbarian hero: epic and larger than life with grand mythos and a destiny.

As the movie begins, the murderous convict Riddick has been hiding from bounty hunters since surviving the events of Pitch Black. But the law isn’t the only group that wants him. He is also in demand because he could be the man prophesized to stop the deadly Necromongers.

Chronicles owes a tremendous debt to The Matrix. It includes prophecy, a chosen one, a reluctant anti-hero, and more. In fact, instead of an oracle, it has an “elemental” (which the movie explains doesn’t tell the future but just calculates the odds of it) and instead of a super-fast unbeatable Agent Smith, it has a super-fast unbeatable Lord Marshal. Most of the time, Chronicles feels like a film student’s attempt to make his own Matrix. The only differences come from things Twohy pulls from sci-fi staples like Star Wars, Dune, and Flash Gordon.

The $120-million budget makes the film stand above Pitch Black in special effects and landscapes. The action is constant but rarely ground-breaking. In fact, in one major battle, the action is so passive it feels like a music video. All in all, this is a slightly above-average action flick with a solid ending that alone makes another sequel—and what Riddick could do in it—intriguing.

But as Twohy and Diesel know, their bread and butter is Riddick himself. He really is the classic bigger-than-life hero you can’t take your eyes of off. But, in the lead role now, he does get old after a while. Even Vin Diesel can bark only so many badly written one-liners before it gets tiring.

But Riddick is intriguing not just because of his toughness and Schwarzenegger presence. He is also a study in reluctant anti-heroes. He’s a killer. But there’s also a caring side and a sense of mystery that draws you in. After two movies, it is still hard to peg down exactly what makes this guy tick. The movies tease you to think that Riddick may be guiltily wrestling with who he is. But is he? In the first film, he says he believes in God but hates him because of the tough life he’s had. And then, after learning a lesson in personal sacrifice, he tells a character that the old Riddick is now dead: “He died somewhere on that planet.”

But in the sequel, the character doesn’t go much deeper than that. It’s hard to tell which Riddick he is here, the old one who “died on that planet” or a new reformed one. There just isn’t much character development and no substantial discussion of Riddick’s beliefs or convictions.

Therefore, all of Chronicles‘ religious content pretty much belongs to the Necromongers. Opening narration describes them as a religion making a dark pilgrimage to their promised land. On their way, they destroy planets one-by-one to increase their numbers by conversion. In truth, the massive army seems to more resemble Star Wars’ evil Empire or Star Trek’s Borg than a religion. The Necromongers rule with fear and they seemingly brainwash their victims in a forced conversion.

Still, the movie does try to comment on religious free choice and the nature of evil. But, like the heat on Crematoria, little is fleshed out. But I suppose it really doesn’t matter because … wow, isn’t Riddick cool?

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Beginning narration says: “In normal times, evil should be fought by good but in times like these, it should be fought by another evil.” In what ways is this true in the universe of the movie? How is that applicable to our world?
2. Do you think Riddick is really evil? Why or why not?
3. What does the movie say about free choice of religion?
4. In what ways are or aren’t the Necromongers a religion? Are they in any way comparable to anything in a Christian worldview? Who is the film’s most honestly religious character?
5. What do you think happens after this film? What do you think Riddick—based on his character thus far—will now do?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violent action and offensive language, the main concerns are with a lot of hand-to-hand combat resulting in plenty of stabbings, decapitations, and death. There’s also a bizarrely sexual scene where women under sheets writhe and moan while reading Riddick’s mind.

Photos © Copyright Universal

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffrey Overstreetfrom Film Forum, 06/17/04

In 2000, a low-budget sci-fi adventure film called Pitch Black delivered enough enthusiasm and creativity to win a crowd of fans, largely due to one of its central characters. We were introduced to Riddick (Vin Diesel), a murderer in shackles who is freed when his spaceship crashes. His talent for killing comes in handy when he and the other stranded survivors are forced to contend with a deadly race of aliens that only come out during a rare solar eclipse. The character made enough of an impression that his creator, David Twohy (Below), decided to expand his story in a big-budget trilogy.

And so we now have The Chronicles of Riddick. You would think that a bigger budget, a cast that includes Dame Judi Dench (Iris, Shakespeare in Love), and a heavily publicized video game tie-in would get things off to a good start.

You would think so …

“Perhaps they should have called it The Chronicles of Riddick-ulous,” writes Michael Elliott (Movie Parables). “The story and dialogue is beyond laughable. How else should we receive lines such as ‘It’s been a long time since I smelled beautiful’ if not with incredulity? The names given to places and people would be more fitting in a Mad Magazine spoof of the film than in the film itself.”

Gerri Pare (Catholic News Service) says, “It’s not the kind of sequel where you need to have seen the first to comprehend the second; it’s just that the better choice is to see the first and maybe skip the second. For all its density of plot and frequent shootouts … Twohy’s script lags, with the necessary sense of urgency distinctly lacking. The characters … are left underdeveloped and end up being dull.”

Tom Neven (Plugged In) says it’s “a richly imagined world; the set and costume designs make for great eye candy, something like The Lord of the Rings meets The Matrix meets the recent remake of Planet of the Apes. Otherwise, the movie is confused. Some of that comes from unnecessary distractions in the story line. But most of it comes from the moral elements within it. I suspect many families won’t be willing to expose their teens … to the moral ambiguity, dicey language, and violence it contains.”

Todd Hertz (Christianity Today Movies) says, “Most of the time, Chronicles feels like a film student’s attempt to make his own Matrix. The action is constant but rarely groundbreaking. In fact, in one major battle, the action is so passive it feels like a music video. All in all, this is a slightly above-average action flick with a solid ending that alone makes another sequel—and what Riddick could do in it—intriguing.”

Mainstream critics are cataloguing the film’s flaws here.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

There has always been something a tad absurd about The Stepford Wives, even once you accept its science-fiction premise, but the new film pushes the concept way, way over the top. The original novella by thriller writer Ira Levin (Rosemary’s Baby, The Boys from Brazil) tapped into feminist fears that men would gladly exchange their flesh-and-blood wives for domesticated, hyper-sexual robots if they could, and the 1975 film directed by Bryan Forbes went on to emphasize the even deeper horror that takes place within the men themselves: it is one thing to be killed and replaced by a machine, but it is quite another to allow your own soul to be twisted against your conscience. These days, however, it seems the battle of the sexes is either so complicated or so passé—take your pick—that the only thing a mainstream film can do with the subject is to make fun of it all. So, in the hands of Frank Oz—the Muppeteer who gave life to Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy and Yoda, and the director of the campy musical version of Little Shop of Horrors—The Stepford Wives has become an out-and-out comedy.

And as comedies go these days, it’s actually fairly funny, albeit in a light, superficial way which either hides or exposes the fact that the plot is a thick tangle of mutual contradictions and the social commentary is pretty much all over the place. No doubt the incoherence on display can be blamed on the reshoots that reportedly plagued this production, but one does have to wonder how much of the credit, if that’s the word, should go to screenwriter Paul Rudnick (In & Out), whose work in the past has shown a similar preference for zingers over narrative logic.

The first sign that the new film has pretty much nothing to do with the real world comes in the opening scene, in which Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman), now no longer a freelance photographer but the ultra-successful president of a top-rated television network, promotes a new batch of reality-TV shows that all hinge on female empowerment. (In real life, of course, shows that explicitly pursue the gender angle—like Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? and The Swan—have taken the exact opposite tack and perpetuated the very stereotypes that feminists fought thirty years ago.) Joanna’s plans are brought to a crashing halt when a man who appeared on one of her shows turns up, brandishing a gun and crying, “Let’s kill all the women!” Fearing lawsuits, the network cancels all of Joanna’s shows and lets her go—much to her shock.

Looking for a change of pace, Joanna and her doting husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) move with their family to Connecticut, and to the gated community of Stepford. At first, Joanna is weirded out by the buxom, blissed-out women in the floral-print dresses, but then she tries to fit in, baking cupcakes and knitting and performing various other tasks while Walter spends his time at the Men’s Association, a club whose leader, Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken), offers Walter the chance to give his wife a mechanical upgrade. Earlier versions of this story kept Walter’s activities at the club an ominous secret, and one that left him shaking; but in this film, he watches a man withdraw money from a woman’s mouth as though she were an ATM, and his eyes go wide with appreciative wonder. Later, when his son is playing and idly remarks that robots are cool, Walter grins with anticipation. Ha, ha, ha.

Joanna does not entirely conform to the Stepford way of life, thanks to two other relatively new arrivals in town—Bobbi Markowitz (Bette Midler), a sassy Jewish author, and Roger Bannister (Roger Bart), a flamboyantly gay man—who bring a bit of spice to her life and keep it unpredictable. But one by one, Joanna’s friends are Stepford-ized. Roger, who says there has been trouble in his relationship with his partner Jerry (David Marshall Grant) ever since the latter became a “gay Republican” (which Roger likens to being “gay with bad hair”), even becomes that rarest of specimens, a conservative politician who is both proudly gay and religious. And ultimately, Joanna too comes face-to-face with what her hubby has planned for her.

This is the point where earlier versions of the story pretty much came to their eerie end. But the new film gets to this point awfully quickly, and it keeps right on moving, into a new act that takes all the assumptions and premises of the earlier scenes and earlier versions of this story and blows them all right out of the water. You think the story is all about the subjugation of women by men? Think again. And as much as the new denouement may contradict the premises set down by the rest of the film, it does hark back, thematically, to those opening scenes at the network, where the only executives we see all happen to be female. The world of plastic smiles and simulated perfection, the film seems to be saying, may ultimately be something women impose on each other.

The film does touch on other current trends, such as the quest for spiritual stability through pharmaceuticals and medical treatments, all of which may tend to reduce human beings to the equivalent of machines that need fixing, as well as the growing interest in robotic pets and automated devices that talk back to us, which raises interesting questions about the kinds of attachments that are developing between humans and machines—and the effect these attachments may have on our human relationships. But it touches on these things very, very lightly. In the end, the film is much more interested in lampooning traditional gender roles, and the debates around them, than in worrying about such things.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Is there such a thing as “perfection”? If so, define it. If you could make yourself or anyone you know perfect, would you? Are all of our “flaws” really flaws, or do you think the real flaw is sometimes in our standards of “perfection”?
2. Joanna makes a distinction between saying you love someone (which the robots can do) and meaning it (which the robots presumably cannot do). How is this distinction important? Do you always mean it when you tell someone you love them? Should you ever tell someone you love them even if you don’t feel it? What is love? Is it a feeling, or something else? (See 1 Cor. 13, John 15:13, Romans 5:8.)
3. Do you think the film encourages stereotypes (of men, women, gays, Republicans, Jews, Christians, etc.), or does it challenge them? Both? What role do you think men and women have in society today? What role do you think they should have? How have things changed since the original film came out in 1975?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

The Stepford Wives is rated PG-13 for “sexual content, thematic material and language.” The characters often talk about sex and on one occasion they overhear a couple having sex. Some of the humor also revolves around the physical endowment of the robot wives. One of the main characters is a gay man who keeps pictures of Lord of the Rings co-stars Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen; he later runs for political office, touting the “power of prayer” and thanking his gay “partner in life, and partner in the Lord.” Except for the opening scene in which a man tries to assassinate Joanna, there is little violence, and most of it is directed against the robots, one of which loses its head, while another sticks its hand in a fire without noticing.

Photos © Copyright Paramount Pictures

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffrey Overstreetfrom Film Forum, 06/17/04

When The Stepford Wives was first published, and when the first film version came along in 1975, it carried with it an anti-establishment attitude, lampooning a chauvinistic society that kept women from seeking careers or from thinking for themselves. Now, it’s been re-made under the direction of Frank Oz, the Muppeteer who gave voices to Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, and Yoda, and who went on to direct such comedy hits as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, In & Out, and Bowfinger.

Nicole Kidman plays Joanna Eberhard, a successful TV producer who suffers a nervous breakdown and moves away with her husband (Matthew Broderick) to a community that presents her with a whole new set of challenges. The women of Stepford seem programmed for strange behavior and early demise. The more she gets to know these women (Glenn Close plays the ringleader), the more Joanna suspects there is something sinister at work behind the scenes.

Mainstream critics are giving the film mixed reviews, praising the stars and acknowledging the laughs, but observing that this satire’s time may have passed. It may be that the film is no longer criticizing an oppressive system so much as it is mocking the choices of some women to pursue marriage and motherhood.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) discusses the themes and contexts of the original story and its first film version. He observes that this new version is playing to a different audience. “These days … it seems the battle of the sexes is either so complicated or so passé—take your pick—that the only thing a mainstream film can do with the subject is to make fun of it all. So … The Stepford Wives has become an out-and-out comedy. And as comedies go these days, it’s actually fairly funny, albeit in a light, superficial way which either hides or exposes the fact that the plot is a thick tangle of mutual contradictions and the social commentary is pretty much all over the place. In the end, the film is much more interested in lampooning traditional gender roles, and the debates around them, than in worrying about such things.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says the filmmakers “misstep badly with this adaptation of the classic women’s lib horror film. The original film was chilling in its depiction of women being mechanized into subservience by the husbands who resented gender equality. The remake instead tries to go for the laugh but absolutely fails to satirize or spoof the original. This film does not even attempt to comment upon the feminist movement or the woman’s role in the world. If anything, this version of The Stepford Wives is about the stupidity of men.”

Michael Ray (Hollywood Jesus) says, “The movie never settles into a distinct tone. The comedy is forced … and the dark aspects aren’t dark enough. Sadly, the movie gets lost in a mess of its own cuteness, Hollywood shine, and worst of all—it suffers from a lack of inspiration.”

Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) says the movie “missed a great opportunity to update its message and speak to the very modern issue of what it means to be real in a superficial world. It also could have explored what postmodern husbands expect of their wives, in terms of love, honor and respect, as they face the shared responsibilities of family life in an increasingly hectic society.”

Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) observes that it “reinforces the notion that a homemaker is a slave bound by apron strings threatening to cut off circulation to the brain. It also does its best to emasculate and vilify husbands. Other targets include Republicans, corporate America, and insensitive Christians.”

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

If you see Napoleon Dynamite, you’ll understand why the tagline reads, “He’s out to prove he’s got nothing to prove.” Director Jared Hess co-wrote the script with his wife, Jerusha, and the Hesses don’t give you a film with a coherent plotline; rather, they show us a series of random vignettes in the life of the film’s main character, Napoleon Dynamite (played superbly by Jon Heder). Yet, Napoleon is such a compelling character that any story seems less important than getting to hear his take on the various issues in his life. For any independent film lovers and for any comedy buffs, Napoleon Dynamite presents 90 minutes of cultish one-liners and memorable character quirks—which probably explains why the film, after almost two months in theaters, continues to move up the box office charts week after week.

Napoleon first won over crowds as a nomination for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival (2004) and as a winner for the Film Discovery Jury Award at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival (2004). At both festivals, audiences screened a slightly shorter version of the film, which means the theatrical release offers a few more minutes of Napoleon (“Yesss!” as Napoleon would say). Since its time on the festival circuit, Napoleon has gained word-of-mouth praise that has pushed a fairly new and fairly young group of filmmakers into big-time Hollywood territory. Director Hess is already at work on a new feature film and has a TV series in development.

When I noticed that the film was produced, in part, by MTV, I winced as I remembered some of the company’s previous attempts at filmmaking: the raunchy Varsity Blues, the unnecessary Beavis & Butthead Do America, and the forgettable Joe’s Apartment. But Napoleon is surprisingly tame and lighthearted. The movie relies on the extraordinary spectacle that is Napoleon Dynamite and the ordinary weirdness of everyday human interaction for humor—face it, we’ve all known or seen someone who tries a get-rich-quick scheme, finds a soulmate online, or contends that he has nunchuck skills. Well, maybe we don’t all know that last kind of person. But you will, if you see this film.

The movie opens with a shot of Napoleon waiting for his school bus. He’s wearing Moon Boots and flipping through his Trapper Keeper, fidgeting with one of his many drawings and preparing an adventure for an action figure tied to fishing line. As Napoleon boards the bus and makes his way to the back, a fellow rider asks, “What are you going to do today, Napoleon?” to which Napoleon replies, “Whatever I feel like I wanna do … gosh!” And, within two minutes, the director has taken us from spectator to player; we’re in the film with Napoleon and, together, we watch the action figure bounce along the road behind the bus. We end up looking forward to each and every moment of Napoleon’s day, since he strikes us as the kind of person who can, and will, come across all sorts of “situations.”

First situation: Napoleon isn’t the most popular person at school. His awkward mannerisms tend to thwart any sort of friendships until he meets Pedro (Efren Ramirez), a new kid from Mexico who wants to run for class president. Second situation: Napoleon’s grandmother has had a dune buggy accident, and Napoleon’s Uncle Rico (The Rundown‘s Jon Gries), a time-traveling obsessed wannabe jock, shows up to care for Napoleon and his brother, Kip (Aaron Ruell). Third situation: Kip. Kip may be the scrawniest and laziest person alive. At one point, he says, “Napoleon, don’t be jealous that I’ve been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I’m training to be a cage fighter.” Final situation: Napoleon needs to find a date to the school’s upcoming dance. A likely candidate would be Deb (Tina Majorino), a fellow student, a door-to-door boondoggle saleswoman, and the operator of a glamour shots photo studio.

At first, the film seems void of any overtly redeeming factors. In a world where Napoleon’s defensive phrase is “freakin’ idiot,” and where most of the characters communicate in a heavily sarcastic manner, it would be easy to fall into the habit of laughing at Napoleon and elbowing your movie buddy whenever a character inserts a good “burn.” What shouldn’t be overlooked, though, is Napoleon’s willingness to persevere through his teen experience and his efforts to be a good friend to both Pedro and Deb. Certainly, Napoleon pushes the authority limits with Uncle Rico, even going so far as to say things such as, “She [Grandma] said you should leave because you’re ruining everyone’s life and eating all our steak,” and “Get off my property!” But Napoleon is also a frustrated and different teenager, and, while that doesn’t excuse his behavior, it gives Hess some fertile ground with which to grow Napoleon as a person.

This film isn’t for everyone. But if you have an indie film sense of humor—and those of you who have it know what I mean—you’ll probably enjoy this flick. Young children probably wouldn’t appreciate the film’s style and would get bored with the longer stretches. But teens and young adults will memorize the film’s lines and look forward to Hess’ next project.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Napoleon has a unique personality and doesn’t fit in with the crowd. Is that good or bad? What does this film say about individuality and the different gifts that people have to offer?
2. Most of the film’s dialogue is superficial; many characters don’t know how to relate. What role does miscommunication play in this film? How could the characters better communicate with one another?
3. Pedro and Napoleon become good friends. In what ways do they nurture their friendship? How do they help each other?

Related Elsewhere:

A ready-to-download, Bible-based discussion guide is available for this movie at ChristianBibleStudies.com. Use this guide after the movie to help you and your small group better connect your faith to pop culture.

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Napoleon Dynamite is, for the most part, a clean movie. Some viewers may be offended by the sarcastic tone of the dialogue—like Napoleon’s scattered responses of “freakin’ idiot.” There’s also one scene in which a farmer shoots a cow (though we don’t see footage).

Photos © Copyright Fox Searchlight Pictures

What Other Critics Are Saying

Seattle Weekly described Napoleon Dynamite, a comedy about a high school geek in Preston, Idaho, as “supernaturally lethargic.” Jon Heder plays the quirky hero who must deal with a family that redefines dysfunction. The film has been in theatres for a few weeks now, and many mainstream critics are praising it as one of the summer’s funniest films, but few religious press critics have seen it.

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “The film is riding a ground swell of enthusiastic support as it begins to open in more and more theaters nationwide. There are two reasons why. The first is a brilliant and memorable characterization by newcomer Jon Heder. The second is a solid screenplay co written by director Jared Hess that absolutely nails its depiction of the ‘uncool’ members of high school life. Heder is a laugh riot as Napoleon. By underplaying all of the character’s quirks and absurdities he brings an aura of familiarity to the role. It’s as if we kind of remember someone like him in high school. Of course, we never got to know him real well because, back then, it wouldn’t have been cool to be seen with him.”

Catching up with Napoleon Dynamite, Andrew Coffin (World) offers moderate praise for the story of a unique high school outsider who learns to roll with the punches. Coffin writes, “There are plenty of opportunities for the film to turn dark and disturbing … yet it never does. Instead, the film remains fixated on Napoleon and the supremely odd cast of characters who surround him with unpretentious glee. In that sense, despite the lack of much in the way of a story arc, Napoleon is always surprising. It also remains grounded in a (heightened) reality to which we all can relate.”

Napoleon Dynamite earned a good review from Adam R. Holz (Plugged In), who says the title character is “an everyman whom we can all relate to. We laugh at his idiosyncrasies even as we realize that we may be blind to some of our own. What could be a mean-spirited film picking on hopelessly unaware nerds is actually very aware of who these characters are—and we root for them. Napoleon Dynamite is hip precisely because its makers are aware of how unhip it is.”

Josh Hurst (Reveal) objects to the reviews that compare the film to Rushmore. “I’m inclined to think that it would be far more apropos for critics to compare this film to the likes of Anchorman or Airplane! rather than Rushmore. Like those flicks, Napoleon Dynamite offers plenty of belly laughs for those who can overlook a lack of any kind of strong storyline. It’s not exactly explosive, but it’s certainly not a bomb.”

Related Elsewhere:

A ready-to-download, Bible-based discussion guide is available for this movie at ChristianBibleStudies.com. Use this guide after the movie to help you and your small group better connect your faith to pop culture.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

In a recent “Ask the Experts” column, a reader asked how a Christian critic can give a positive review to a film that includes profanity. My answer apparently stirred the pot, as we’ve received quite a bit of feedback—some agreeing with me, some disagreeing—from readers.

My opinion on this subject has grown and changed dramatically over the years. I used to shy away from a film—to revile it, in fact—if it contained expletives. But as I became more involved as a Christian participating in the culture at-large, I realized that, yes, people do talk that way, and how could I demand that artists—Christians or otherwise—abstain from reflecting the truth of the culture, since they also represent other shortcomings, weaknesses, lapses of judgment, and misbehavior in their storytelling?

The real issue, I came to believe, was whether or not the filmmaker was recommending misbehavior. In fact, I have come to care deeply for some of the characters in films who have foul mouths, as I have come to recognize the needs in their hearts, their strengths and weaknesses, their personalities. Their sins and errors become, as the songwriter Sam Phillips writes, “holes” that can “let the light through”—opportunities for growth, grace, and redemption (which sometimes, sadly, never comes).

The reader response to my “Ask the Experts” column included some observations that showed me I should have done one more revision, and then there were some broad generalizations that left me staring wide-eyed at the screen. It’s ironic—some of the respondents used very strong language, expressing that they were ready to drag me before the throne for a quick sentencing.

I’d like to respond to some of those who were troubled by the piece, hoping to clarify my points.

Scriptural Scripts?

I observed that movies, like Scripture, often give us stories in which people misbehave severely. One writer noted the following:

“It’s one thing to say someone was caught committing adultery, and another thing entirely showing adultery on the big screen, in the flesh, basically for entertainment, even if that artist is trying to make a point. I don’t think Scripture says things the way moviemakers do. The motive is different. Someone is interested in turning a buck in making a movie, while Scripture is speaking a truth. Overstreet needs to search this out a little deeper.”

Perhaps I do need to search it out further. Still, any artist worth their salt is motivated by something other than merely “turning a buck.” Nonetheless, just as a carpenter or a plumber or an airline pilot earns wages for their work, there’s nothing wrong with a filmmaker earning a buck for their efforts—unless that artist is cheating or otherwise abusing his privileges.

Responsible artists don’t stoop to making indulgent entertainment to make a buck. Most moviemakers strive to create challenging art with integrity, in which misbehavior is truthfully and honestly portrayed rather than condoned. For example, see the work of Flannery O’Connor, who wrote about people behaving badly in order to jolt us awake to the reality of lives lived without apprehension of grace or love. There is a lot of good art out there that portrays adultery, burglary, murder, dishonesty, or any other misbehavior in the way of a responsible, purposeful storyteller. Just because some people tell reckless, foolish stories doesn’t mean we should generalize that moviemakers in general are guilty of this.

Communicating with Culture

Another reader writes:

“I wonder … if our tolerance of more and more expressions of ungodliness in media has less to do with whether or not enjoying them is somehow biblically justifiable, and more to do with our own desensitization to sin.”

Most of us would admit that we have been guilty of a rationalization or two in the name of getting what we want. I include myself amongst those who need to remind themselves daily that we should guard our hearts against such deceptions and destructive behavior.

But many are also seeking to live as Christ and the apostles did, participating in contemporary culture, attending to the expressions of our neighbors with discernment. In their culture, people told each other stories. In ours, we see expressions offered in all manner of media. Some moviemakers will reward our attention with excellence and insight. Others will disappoint us with poor storytelling, shoddy craftsmanship, or indulgence. Most films are a mixed bag.

If we hope to have a dialogue with culture, we must attend to their visions of the world respectfully, unless they abuse the privilege; otherwise, they will see no reason to attend to our vision of the world. But we must also be cautious not to be quick to anger and judgment, or we will end up focusing on smaller, superficial details and miss what really needs attention—the heart of the work and the voice of the artist.

One letter in response to the article included this statement: “If someone attempts to use this kind of language around me, I will quickly point out that I don’t like it and then remove myself from the situation.” I don’t remember Christ rebuffing anyone because of an expletive, but he did reprove those who spoke hypocritically or who behaved sanctimoniously toward others. I don’t remember the Bible suggesting we are to depart from culture and create a counterculture that is sanitized of all outward signs of sin. It was to the sick that Christ brought his doctoral skills. Those seeking him often found him in rough company rather than the community of the pious.

On the other hand, we certainly should not make it our focus to seek out sin wherever we can find it. I certainly don’t find myself wanting to hear more foul language, or desiring to see more sin. Nor do I wish to lead people to be exposed to more sin. As a Christian film critic, I consider it my job to encourage people to develop greater skills of interpretation. It is my prayer that this work helps each reader become more conscientious and perceptive as they sift through cinematic storytelling in search of insight, opportunities to highlight and affirm the truth, and chances to point out flawed sentiments and misleading worldviews.

What Would Jesus Do?

“Test all things,” says the author of 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “and hold firmly to what is good.” Unfortunately, many believers would rather avoid testing anything, withdrawing from the world instead of penetrating it, interacting with it, and transforming it. Those who do arm themselves and engage with the culture often find God revealing himself there, even in the work of artists oblivious to the Spirit’s influence.

This question—often simplified into the phrase “What would Jesus do?”—was a concern for some of the respondents.

From one of the aforementioned letters:

“Evangelicals want to make Jesus into their own image as a good-guy Messiah who would go to the movies with us and even share a few guilty laughs at the naughty, gross and demeaning jokes. I read Philippians 4:8-9 and I find it hard to find too many movies that would make it through God’s filter of what we should let our minds and hearts dwell on.”

Some Christians may be guilty of dumbing down their idea of Jesus, but I certainly don’t picture Jesus in that way. Jesus did hang out with the rough, flawed, party-going people of his day, and Christians may go to the movies with their neighbors in a similar spirit, showing discernment and providing perspective that the lost would otherwise not have. I have encountered many who are avid moviegoers who vehemently condemn indulgent and crass work, just as they enthusiastically embrace and recommend films that are rewarding and revelatory.

Regarding Philippians 4:8-9, I think it is important to notice the word dwell. Jesus went out and talked with all manner of people in his lost culture. And he listened to them intently. While he “dwelt” on God’s Word, he ventured out into the conversations and lives of those around him. Similarly, the Apostle Paul spent time in places where there were monuments to other gods. He went there, paid attention to those monuments and the various worldviews of his neighbors, and then, resisting any temptations or lies of those beliefs, he spoke about them knowledgeably. His familiarity with popular culture gave him integrity when he spoke about the Lord. We are called to be “in the world, but not of the world.” We should attend to the expressions of our neighbors and respond with wisdom, but we should dwell upon what we have tested and found to be true, those things that are “excellent and worthy of praise.”

It is also worth noting that different aspects of a film—its script, its performances, its score, and its cinematography—can reflect God’s glory through excellence. I have been moved to prayer and uplifted to epiphanies sometimes by one inspired artistic flourish in an otherwise mediocre film. Simply condemning a film for one offensive element is a rash and narrow approach that might cut us off from revelation.

Wrong to Depict Reality?

Another person writes:

“That foul language is a part of our world is an all too painful reality, but it’s a mistake to say that when an artist portrays it to imitate reality he or she has done nothing wrong.”

To that, I would ask, did Mel Gibson do something wrong when he portrayed the Romans whipping Christ? Did Robert Duvall do something wrong when he portrayed Pastor Dewey beating his wife’s lover with a baseball bat? These are far more grievous behaviors than portraying a character who speaks a foolish word in a moment of heated temper. And yet, these incidents are employed effectively in powerful storytelling.

Another reader writes:

“Today’s movies are not so much an art form as they are a means to generate wealth. It is big business, and godliness does not sell tickets.”

Does The Passion of The Christ support this point? The Lord of the Rings? Finding Nemo? These films are all about godly qualities—Christ’s longsuffering, Frodo’s sacrifice, Marlin’s fatherly devotion to his son—and they earned their artists a fortune. Sometimes, godliness does sell tickets.

Another reader writes:

“Your argument that each viewer must attend to their own conscience and not judge another for their choice is a misapplication of otherwise good counsel. Giving a rebuke to another is not being judgmental. Rather it is an act of love attempting to pull another back from evil. Furthermore, in your case a strong rebuke is warranted because you have taken a leadership role in a sense as a movie critic.”

There is a time and a place for a rebuke, yes. But just as God calls some people to minister to the lost in the inner city—where many people demonstrate foul language, bad behavior, violence, drug use, prostitution, and worse—so there are some believers who are not equipped for exposure to such volatile realities. I meant only to say that some Christians may be wounded by aspects of a work of art, and that same work of art may be a rewarding and truthful vision for another. We should attend to our conscience and be slow to judge the motives and experiences of other viewers. If we see another person spending time with work that we know to be worthless and destructive—p*rnography is the best example—we should indeed investigate. And if we see exposure to that work influencing them negatively, by all means, intervention is in order.

But if we insist on abstinence from any movies that include bad language, then we must also reject Shakespeare and libraries full of great literature (including the Bible) that include characters who use foul language and commit all manner of sins.

Christ’s Example

Finally, this from a reader who accuses me of “rationalizing”:

“You can always rationalize that listening to bad language in movies is just hearing the real world, but I wonder what you would truly say if Jesus stood in front of you and saw you watching this trash?”

What would Jesus have said if he saw the Apostle Paul walking amongst the monuments erected to false gods? Scripture shows that God blessed such engagement with culture.

As a believer, I can assert with conviction that Jesus is standing in front of me right now. So yes, I had better weigh my words, asking for wisdom, for humility, and when I fail, for forgiveness. But I reaffirm what I have said—that we should follow Christ’s example by listening and attending to the lives, the words, the stories of other people in the world.

Movies can be mere moneymaking deceptions. But they can also be revelatory illustrations of our world and its confusion. They can be visions of hope and redemption. Sometimes a film can be a cry for help. Each film comes from a human source, reflecting both the good and the evil of which each of us is capable. And we should respond with truth, love, and grace, as he and his apostles did, holding fast to what is good, and dwelling on what is worthy of praise.

Let me be clear—just as each person has their own level of maturity, their own strengths and weaknesses, so each person will find a different “comfort level” with the media they choose to experience. In no way would I suggest that everyone should be out there seeing each film that is released. I take seriously Scripture’s charge that I should not lead another to stumble. But I also take seriously Scripture’s exhortation that we be “transformed” by the “renewing” of our minds. It is my hope that my reviews, commentaries and my weekly Film Forum play a role in fulfilling that for its readers.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

I must confess, I’ve never watched one of Ronald Reagan’s movies beginning to end. I caught the last half of Knute Rockne All American on TV one night—including the famous “win just one for the Gipper” line—but the former President’s recent death will have many of us seeking out some of his old films for the first time.

But the man made 59 movies, so where does one even begin? I started with the Internet Movie Database, where its 18 million-plus users rate films. In other words, I went looking for fan favorites, not necessarily critics’ favorites. (As it turns out, the fans like pretty much the same ones the critics like.)

One observation before I get to the list: You would think that the man who would ultimately be the Leader of the Free World might have also been at least a leading man in Hollywood. And sometimes, he was—but many of those movies were busts.

Reagan’s greatest strength, according to a recent article in Entertainment Weekly, was as a supporting actor, which required him to be “sturdy and dependable.” As EW noted, Reagan might’ve been best in roles that helped other actors shine. And come to think of it, as President, he made those around him—in the Oval Office, in Washington, across the nation and, indeed, around the world—better. The end of the Cold War—and the fall of communism—is proof enough of that. May he rest in peace.

So, based on what movie fans are saying, here are five Ronald Reagan films worth checking out:

1. Kings Row (1942)

In what critics say is his finest performance, Reagan plays Drake McHugh in this Golden Era tragedy based on Henry Bellaman’s controversial, best-selling epic novel about cruelty and mental instability in small-town America. Reagan and Ann Sheridan—as Randy Monaghan, the girl from the wrong side of the tracks—face numerous tragedies at home while WWII rages on overseas. One of those tragic events (we won’t give it away) prompts Drake to say, “Where’s the rest of me?”—which ended up being the title of Reagan’s 1965 autobiography.

2. Dark Victory (1939)

Bette Davis is the star of the show, playing a flighty socialite (yes, there were flighty socialites long before Paris Hilton) who almost dies in a horse jumping accident. The handsome doctor—no, not Reagan, but George Brent—discovers a terminal brain disease, but they fall in love and get married anyway. So where does Reagan come into the picture? As a socialite himself—and friend to Davis’s character—who likes to booze it up. Wanna see the future Prez slur his speech? Here’s the place.

3. The Hasty Heart (1949)

In this tear-jerker of a wartime hospital drama, Reagan plays Yank, a soldier with malaria. The film is set in a M.A.S.H. unit in Burma at the end of the war. A Scottish soldier, Corporal Lachlan MacLachlan (played by Richard Todd), is recovering from surgery while other soldiers begin to pack up and go home. But MacLachlan must remain behind “for observation,” because he’s dying, but doesn’t know it. A nurse, and several of his war buddies, are asked to stay behind to make him as comfortable as possible, but he wants no part of it and is anxious to go home.

4. The Killers (1964)

Reagan’s final film, based on an Ernest Hemingway short story, was originally made for television, but the gang-life drama was deemed too violent for TV and thus released as a feature film. It was also the first—and last—time Reagan would play a crook (he even slaps Angie Dickinson around). Reagan later said, “I did (the role), but had an awful feeling.” He would never be the Bad Guy again.

5. Storm Warning (1951)

A grim Ku Klux Klan drama featuring Ginger Rogers as a New York model named Marsha who goes South to visit her sister Lucy (Doris Day)—whose husband turns out to be a Klan thug, killer, and rapist. After Marsha witnesses a KKK murder, she helps the prosecuting attorney (Reagan) unravel the scandal and bring the bad guys to justice.

Five more Dutch treats worth checking out:• Knute Rockne All American (1940)—everybody’s gotta watch this one for the Gipper• The Voice of the Turtle (1947)—Reagan’s Sgt. Bill Page in this wartime comedy based in NYC• Desperate Journey (1942)—Reagan and Errol Flynn in another war yarn—behind enemy lines• Brother Rat (1938)—a zany comedy where Reagan woos Jane Wyman (his future wife)• Bedtime for Bonzo (1951)—Reagan, a chimp and plenty of shenanigans; what’s not to like?

Turner Classic Movies has scheduled an all-day salute to Reagan for Thursday, June 10. The network will run 15 straight Reagan films, including Kings Row, beginning at 8 a.m.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.