pan's labyrinth (notes)

Next to SON OF MAN, my top movie of 2006. Bowled over. I'm thrilled that it's caught people's attention, continues on at arthouse and multiplex alike. Huge imagination, visually brilliant fantasy (or supernatural?) world juxtaposed against atrocities of the all-too-real Spanish civil war - and ultimately, for me, very close to the heart of the gospel.

A girl on the verge of womanhood experiences two interconnected worlds, the real-world horrors of the last days of the Spanish civil war and another, subterranean world that may be fantasy, or may be a deeper reality. The brutal real-world violence (and comparable below-ground terrors) are far removed from the pain porn of HOSTEL or its ilk: this visionary film earns the right to show us the dark side of human behaviour with its commitment to showing the courage and sacrifice that counter-balance. Film-maker Guillermo del Toro identifies himself as a lapsed Catholic, but takes pains to clarify that that's "not quite the same thing as an atheist," and that distinction doesn't surprise me - this film gave me one of the most extraordinary glimpses of Eternity I can recall. It's become an annoying commonplace these days to label films (usually sentimental ones) "redemptive": which usually just means "don't worry, it ends happy." But redemption is a far more exacting, sacred, and potent word than that: PAN'S LABYRINTH is the rare film that can truly claim that descriptor.

Here are some notes I've gathered from here and there. Of course, best thing is for you to see the movie first, THEN read the notes. But if you need further prompting...

Darrel Manson:
"The most theologically interesting film of the year."

Mark Kermode, Sight & Sound:
"The film of the year.. a Citizen Kane of fantasy cinema, a masterpiece made entirely on his own terms.…
It's an epic, poetic vision in which the grim realities of war are matched and mirrored by a descent into an underworld populated by fearsomely beautiful monsters - a transformative, life-affirming nightmare which is, for my money, the very best film of the year. …
del Toro: "Ofelia is a "princess who forgot who she was and where she came from", who progresses through the labyrinth to emerge as a promise that gives children the chance never to know the name of their father - the fascist. It's a parable, just as The Devil's Backbone was a parable of the Spanish Civil War. I was also trying to uncover a common thread between the "real world" and the "imaginary world" through one of the seminal concerns of fairy tales: choice. It's something that has intrigued me since Cronos, through Hellboy and now to Pan's Labyrinth: the way your choices define you. And I thought it would be great to counterpoint an institutional lack of choice, which is fascism, with the chance to choose, which the girl takes in this movie."
del Toro is a divided soul, a realist attuned to the strange vibrations of the supernatural, a lapsed Catholic ('not quite the same thing as an atheist') with an interest in sacrifice and redemption who turned down the chance to direct The Chronicles of Narnia because he 'wasn't interested in the lion resurrecting'. Crucially, like the artistic refugees from Franco's Spain who first inspired him, the writer-director considers himself an exile from his home country, Mexico, not least because of the 1997 kidnapping of his father, at the height of a vogue for such ransomed abductions. He was released after 72 days. "'I was 33,' el Toro recalls. 'The perfect age to be crucified! I had lived my life believing two things - that pain should not be sought, but, by the same token, it should never be avoided, because there is a lesson in facing adversity. Having gone through that experience, I can attest, in a non-masochistic way, that pain is a great teacher. I don't relish it, but I learn from it. I always say, even as an ex-Catholic, that God sends the letter, but not the dictionary. You need to forge your own dictionary."
'It would be a cliche to say that, because I am a Mexican, I see death in a certain way. But I have seen more than my share of corpses, certainly more than the average First World guy. I worked for months next to a morgue that I had to go through to get to work. I've seen people being shot; I've had guns put to my head; I've seen people burnt alive, stabbed, decapitated ... because Mexico is still a very violent place. So I do think that some of that element in my films comes from a Mexican sensibility.'
"Shooting Pan's Labyrinth was very painful, but it also became a war about me not compromising. I gave back my entire salary in order to get the film made the way I wanted it. I probably should have abandoned it the moment the funding fell through the first time, but I stuck with it for almost two-and-a-half years and refused to back down. It's the first time in the six movies I've directed where I've said: I'm doing this one my way, no matter what. Financiers ran out on me and everyone involved in my career was saying it was the biggest mistake I could make. But I'm very happy with the result. And for me, nothing will be the same again."...
The key inspiration for Pan's Labyrinth was a slim volume published in 1891: Edwin Sidney Hartland's The Science of Fairy Tales: An Enquiry into Fairy Mythology , which "classified fairytales, and their oral origins, and broke down the recurring myths - the myth of choice; the ritual of not eating or drinking while you're in the fairy world; facing very often a figure like the frog. I took all these things and came up with the story of Pan's Labyrinth . The psychosexual interpretation is, of course, much more modern, but I find it very reductive. For me, Pan's Labyrinth is a dark fairytale in the classic sense. The settings of Andersen, the Brothers Grimm and Oscar Wilde were incredibly brutal: Hansel and Gretel were two children abandoned in the woods in the middle of a famine to die of hunger and cold. But you need to know the brutality for the reality of the magic to happen. That's why the war made such a perfect backdrop."
He also wrestled briefly with the ill-fated Exorcist prequel Dominion (aka Exorcist: The Beginning ), the prospect of which appealed to his lapsed-Catholic sensibility. "One of the most important movies in my life, emotionally," he says, "is William Peter Blatty's Twinkle, Twinkle "Killer" Kane [aka The Ninth Configuration ]. It's a movie about redemption through sacrifice and the giving of your blood to save others that speaks to the soul of somebody who believes in a messiah. It deals with the fragility of faith, which is essential to Blatty's work - how faith is almost intangible and yet incredibly strong. And I think it affected me because, although I am no longer a Catholic, I share the belief that there is a state of grace that can be reached not through moral purity but through almost ethical purity - by being yourself and being immune to the world. It's a little ascetic, but it's essentially the thesis of Cronos . In that film the girl who does not mind dying is the truly immortal character. And the character played by Federico Luppi becomes immortal at the moment he decides to die, the moment he says: 'Fuck it, I don't want to kill my granddaughter.' Immortality doesn't mean you live longer; it means you are immune to death. I think that's the same thing that occupies Blatty: faith, the state of grace, immortality, redemption. And these are things that are important for me too." These themes are central to Pan's Labyrinth , the climax of which becomes an epiphany of sacrifice and rebirth.

"opus," in his "twitchfilm" blog entry about the Toronto International Film Festival:
"Guillermo del Toro's much-anticipated dark fable, Pan's Labyrinth, was very well received by an afternoon audience at the Toronto International Film Festival today. The film, which played at the historic Elgin Theater to a packed house, garnered a lengthy standing ovation, amid shouts of "Bravo!", "Encore!", and "Viva Guillermo!"
A&F participant and blogger "opus":
Even the fairy tale segments get pretty dark and spooky... As with the real world violence, I think this just serves to further impress that there is something truly at stake in the heroine's quests; there is evil out there that needs to be vanquished, not glorified and exalted, and I appreciated the film for that. Obviously, I won't spoil the ending, but there is a cost to facing down evil and it is a heavy one.
In this day and age where the term "fairy tale" has become synonymous with cleaned up, whitewashed, Disney-fied "family entertainment", it's easy to forget that many of the great classic fairy tales are, at their core, incredibly dark, twisted, and horrific. The villains are not merely poor, misguided souls who but need a little tolerance or political correctness to turn over a new leaf. Rather, they are vile through and through, not above torturing little children, abandoning them in the wilderness, and planning to serve them for dinner.
In order for there to be hope, there must be something to hope against. And in order for evil to be vanquished -- not merely understood or tolerated, but outright destroyed -- a heavy price must always be paid. It all adds up to a film that successfully draws you into a world of magic, repulses you with brutality and evil, and ends on a lyrical note that is as haunting and beautiful as it is tragic and emotional.

Jeffrey Overstreet:
"This is the feeling that was missing from Wardrobe." Not that I think Wardrobe should have been so creepy, but the fantasy world felt REAL, and living, and unpredictable, and strange... a true wonderland. And Aslan's presence in Wardrobe doesn't even register on the scale compared to Pan. I mean, I didn't doubt Pan's presence for a moment, whereas watching Aslan I sat there thinking about how oddly unconvincing his animation was.
"This film would probably have delighted Tolkien and Lewis, who believed that fairy tales—even dark and troubling myths like this one—serve to help us explore spiritual mysteries and apprehend the reality of grace as it glimmers through a glass, or in this case a screen, darkly. Pan's Labyrinth is a parable so profound it's like the gospel masquerading in a mysterious disguise."
"The film speaks to me about the power of myth, and how myth and reality are intertwined. But its clear to me that the "real world" in Del Toro's story is itself a simplification... and I doubt he would deny that. The whole thing is a "fairy tale" that comments on aspects of the real world. I have boxes full of stories that I wrote when I was a kid, and when I read them, they don't make much sense, but I can find *some* things that correlate to things I was struggling with, or convictions I held, or tests I was going through. I'm fascinated with that subject, and I found Pan's Labyrinth to be enthralling. Del Toro is still a kid in a lot of ways... he strikes me as such in his interviews, and his storytelling shows he's much more adept telling fairy tales than he is with portraying a complex "adult" reality. In films where he deals with both, he ends up giving us a child's perspective on reality... big, frightening, and arranged in much simpler categories than a more mature perspective would present."

Doug Cummings:
"For me, it was a strong corrective to Children of Men in so many ways: the violence was never a thrill ride but always a moral issue; the film contains warm and inspiring human characters as well as neutral or dark and destructive ones; the film's warfare is rooted in actual human existence (in this case, the historical battle between Facists and the Reds) involving real issues; it's a multilayered and superbly constructed double narrative with a thematic depth that only grows the more you think about it afterward. And its performances and technical credentials are just as stellar as CoM. In short, if you want to see a thoughtful fantasy film by a hugely talented Mexican filmmaker this year, this is the one to see."

Best Films Of 2006: Arts & Faith Tally

When the end-of-year windfall of watchable movies begins, I start keeping track of people's year-end lists to come up with ideas for what I want to see. Because the folks at the Arts & Faith conversation board have been friends for years, fellow film fans as well as people who are interested in the spiritual aspects of what they see, I go out of my way to compile their year-end lists as they emerge between the beginning of December and the end of February - it takes that long for some of the best films to reach our various towns, or to track down the dvds.

Anyhow, here's the latest tabulation of A&F Top Tens (or twenties, or mores...)
Titles in blue are available on dvd at Videomatica: boldfaced titles are currently showing in Vancouver: check out NOW PLAYING: Big Screens for details

1 United 93
2 New World
3 The Departed
4 The Queen
5 L'Enfant
6 Babel
7 Sophie Scholl
8 Little Miss Sunshine
9 Children Of Men
10 Death of Mr Lazarescu

11 Casino Royale
12 Little Children
13 Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
14 Pan's Labyrinth
15 Science of Sleep
16 The Fountain
17 Inside Man
18 A Scanner Darkly
19 When The Levees Broke
20 Pirates: Dead Man's Chest

21 Climates
22 The Prestige
23 49 Up
23 Thank You For Smoking
25 Tsotsi
26 A Prairie Home Companion
27 Requiem
27 Borat
29 Proposition
30 Brick

31 Akeelah and the Bee
32 Army Of Shadows
33 Ushpizin
34 An Inconvenient Truth
35 Still Life
36 Half Nelson
37 Woman On The Beach
38 Syndromes & A Century
39 Black Dahlia
40 Colossal Youth

41 Shut Up And Sing
42 Superman Returns
42 Hamaca Paraguaya
44 World Trade Center
45 Volver
45 Lady In The Water
47 Water
48 Hawaii, Oslo
49 Joyeux Noel
50 Forgiving Dr Mengele

into great silence

Mar 27 update: new review up at CT Movies

Nice piece at NY Times.

This was right next to SON OF MAN at the top of my wish-list for VIFF 06, but I didn't buy fast enough and got turned away at the door. Can you imagine: an almost entirely silent three-hour film about a Carthusian monastery, and you can't get a ticket for love nor money?

Well, it runs at the Vancouver International Film Centre (VanCity Theatre) this coming week! Monday Jan 22, Tuesday Jan 23 and Thursday Jan 25 at 7:15. There's a trailer at the film's German website.

And, as timely as John the Baptist, Steven Greydanus posts the following at A&F;

Philip Groening's Into Great Silence is one of those rare films that I hardly know how to begin to praise.

As a rather feeble point of departure, I saw nothing released in 2006 that I would venture to compare to it, in terms of achievement. Perhaps even nothing released in the few years I've been writing reviews. A shortlist of most valued films I've seen as new releases in my critical life might include The Son, The Passion of the Christ, Spirited Away, and a few others. This film is of a different order than any of these, or any I might add to the list.

Into Great Silence is more than just a documentary of monastic life. It is a contemplative, transcendent meditation on the human pursuit of meaning, on man as a religious and social creature; on the form and function of symbols and ritual and tradition; on the rhythm of work and prayer, day and night, winter and spring.

The film offers an implicit challenge, not so much to the trappings of modernity (modern technology crops up here and there in the monks' world, occasionally to humorous effect), as to the spiritual disconnectedness and social fragmentation of a world in decay, to the postmodern incapacity for commitment and sacrifice, to the dissonance and haphazardness of life as we know it.

Among names from Bresson to Vermeer that floated through my head while watching it, Kierkegaard came to mind:
The present state of the world and the whole of life is diseased. If I were a doctor and were asked for my advice, I would reply: Create silence! The Word of God cannot be heard in the noisy world of today. And even if it were blazoned forth with all the panoply of noise so that it could be heard in the midst of all the other noise, then it would no longer be the Word of God. Therefore create Silence.
This film creates silence. Not just absence of noise, but inner stillness.

There are the kind of long, static takes beloved of many cinephiles here (and which I appreciated here as perhaps in no other film). The quiet of the monastery reaches out into the theater: the creaking of monstery floorboards, the creaking of theater seats.

But it's more than that. The movie is not just about comparative quiet; it bears witness to a silence that embodies purpose, seeking, openness, discipline, faith, commitment. It is silence that is avowed. No voiceover narrative tells us why. No intertitle explanations (except brief excerpts from the Old and New Testaments and from other traditional sources). No interview footage (except for one brief, remarkable little meditation from a blind monk, on happiness, abandonment to God's providential care, and the tragedy of the loss of faith and meaning in the modern world). The silence isn't absolute, but it gives meaning to the words, rather than the other way around.

Ultimately, Into Great Silence reveals itself to be about nothing less than the presence of God. So many films are about God's absence. This film is about a God who is there, who can be found, when he is sought with our whole hearts.

The film makes no apology for the monks' dogmatic Christian milieu; the first sustained speech in the film is a chanted excerpt from a patristic treatise on the Holy Spirit, a catechesis in Trinitarian theology. The film is punctuated by intertitles citing Old and New Testament scriptures as well as traditional sources. "Unless a man gives up all he has, he cannot be my disciple," we are told in no uncertain terms.

Yet in this specificity is something universal. Or perhaps this specificity is communicated in a way that makes it universally accessible. Sophie Scholl director Marc Ruthmund, an atheist, told me that he believed in God the whole time he was making that film. Here is a film for which I can't help thinking that receptive viewers, whatever faith or lack of faith they may bring to the table, may just believe in God while they are watching.

The film is 160 minutes long. There is little overt structure, and much repetition; it wouldn't be hard to argue that a 90-minute version would be substantially the same experience. And yet it would and it wouldn't. A hundred minutes into the film, you may feel that you've basically experienced what the film has to offer; and in fact much of what remains is of a piece with what has gone before. Yet for me the last hour of the film was the most sublime. Not because the second half is so different from the first, but because the experience of the first half altered my experience of the film for the second. Like a postulant at the monastery, one needs time to truly acclimate to this world before one is ready to fully appreciate and embrace it, to experience it aright. Repetition, even if you will a degree of monotony, is inseparable from what this film wants to illuminate, what it has to offer.

A great film, what I usually think of as a great film, often leaves me thoughtful, challenged, moved, inspired (creatively and/or spiritually). The Death of Mr. Lazarescu was haunting and thought-provoking. Sophie Scholl was edifying and deeply affecting. United 93 earned my gratitude and admiration more than any other film last year.

I can't fully articulate how Into Great Silence affected me, except to say that it was a transforming experience, in that I find very, very few films to be. I walked the dozen or so blocks from the screening room to my parking garage in another world -- not just imaginatively immersed in the world of the film, but enveloped in a silence in my own heart. Part of me was resolved to find ways of make changes in my life, to find ways of creating silence, of accomodating in small ways the spirit of what I had experienced.

Coincidentally, the film is released by Zeitgeist, which also released the first of my favorite films of 2006, Sophie Scholl. The two couldn't be more different. Dialogue is at the very heart of Sophie Scholl; it's a very talky film. Obviously, Into Great Silence is the antithesis of talky. Beyond that, Sophie Scholl was reasonably critiqued for the absence of any particularly cinematic quality. Here again Into Great Silence is at the other end of the spectrum -- pure cinema, and of an ethereal order.

Ron's P.S.
Having watched SOPHIE SCHOLL for a third time this past weekend, I really cannot agree with his assertion about "the absence of any particularly cinematic quality." It's filmed with great restraint, but there is a terrific sensitivity to color - note the use of red in the beautifully muted colour palette, particularly in the night-time scenes - and any number of sparse but beautifully framed shots - the window in the cell block, the stairway into the room where the final scene takes place, etc. No eye candy, no thrilling landscapes, but a solid (and appropriate) sense of visual artistry, however understated.

Feeling Films: An Actor's Perspective

A friend of mine over at the Arts & Faith film conversation posted some interesting thoughts that tied in with my own movie-going experience. And as the conversation eventually meandered over to some thoughts on film criticism and the responsibility (one might even say "talent"?) one might ask of a film viewer, i thought I'd post it here. (And hey, who's gonna stop me?)

Christian writes;

Three recent films have snuck up on me, and I wanted to get the thoughts of A&Fers about this phenomenon.

Specifically, while watching “Letters From Iwo Jima,” “Children of Men,” and “The Queen,” I’ve found myself detached from the proceedings for as much as half of each film’s running time. Then, during the final third, or final quarter of these films, they tap into some reservoir of emotion, and I find myself overwhelmed.

“COM” created the least intense reaction, but its final moments were nonetheless quite powerful emotionally. I watched “Letters” with a somewhat jaded, “seen this sort of thing” mentality for much of the film, but the grim horror of the soldiers’ situation slowly settled in during hour number 2. Most recently, flying home this past weekend, I watched “The Queen” on the airplane. A curious film with very good performance, but all that Royal Family stoicism resulted in a cold film (appropriately, given the subject matter and how the queen’s reaction is depicted) – until that scene where the Queen asks if she can lay a young girl’s flowers among the other markers of Diana’s passing. The girl’s response undid me.

That must have been an interesting sight—some guy in the window seat, wiping tears.

But the crying isn’t the point—I’ve been doing too much of that at movies lately. Rather, it’s the way these films elicit an emotional response, grabbing me at a point when I’d pretty much decided they weren’t as good as I’d heard. It bothers me to think that an exhibit of a little emotion—which can be so easily manipulated—would tip my opinion in favor of all three films, but that’s a large part of my overall assessment of these movies. I do wonder, however, how these films will hold up when the element of surprise is gone.

My reply;

Oh, very good thread, Christian. I've noticed the same in my reaction to some films recently.

THE QUEEN, definitely. Just like you, I observed all the regal and prime ministerial goings on with interested detachment. Until the scene where Elizabeth visits the tribute to Diana, when suddenly I was ambushed by great upheavals of feeling. (And to be clear, I'm as cynical as Chattaway about Lady Di-olatry. No manipulative buttons were being pushed for me, connecting up with images that evoked sorrow back in the day: I was pretty much on the Queen's side with respect to that!) I've come to think this is the film's greatest accomplishment: over the course of the first hour and a half, it recalibrates our emotions and observations to such a subdued, repressed, understated scale that we are prepared to respond in a large way to a scene which in most other films would be a non-event. Frears teaches us how to view his movie, familiarizes us with how to "read" his character, and then with the subtlest of adjustments conveys immense significance and evokes tremendous feeling. Therein lies the great artistry of that film, in my opinion. It's on the strength of that accomplishment it's enthroned so high on my list of films for 2006.

PAN'S LABYRINTH is a diametrically opposite film with regard to emotion, but I had a similar "release" late in the film: where THE QUEEN is introspective, understated, withheld, "northern," LABYRINTH is extroverted, it expresses, it finds outsize imagery to illustrate inner states, it's "latin." Yet something similar happened for me on the latter film : I was absolutely caught up in the flow of events, crises, character development, dread, excitement, fear, all that. But it wasn't until the final moments that the film sunk into much deeper and more personal emotions - indeed, that it took me to what I would call a "spiritual" place. That's when the tears came, even the quiet sobs - and not just at tragedy, but at triumph mixed with loss. At something that is very akin to elements of the gospel, as Jeffrey has noted.

CHILDREN OF MEN actually faded in personal impact, for me, as it progressed. I pulled away as it involved more and more sustained "action sequences." I didn't hate it, or lose interest, but the immense emotional charge it had built up in me early on simply dissipated with all the running and hair's-breadth escapes and explosions and stuff.

JOYEUX NOEL was probably the strongest demonstration of this "emotion explosion" that I've experienced lately. For half the running time, I was really not finding myself able to engage with the film. I was detached enough to be thinking "Okay, now we meet the Scottish soldiers. Now we meet the French, and now the Germans. They all get humanized. Now they're at the front. Bad front. Then they'll all have Christmas together, and love will overcome hatred. Until the next morning, when they resume chopping each other up into beefsteak tartar." Now that's another overstatment: I wasn't hating the film. Just sitting outside it, wondering what the fuss might be about. So I turned it off, planning to return to the film when I was in a better state of mind. (I was certainly tired, and fighting a tendency to drift off, so that's a definite contributing factor in this instance. But still, some movies cut right through that, others cannot.)

It was several days later that I got back to the film, almost dutifully, to finish it off so I could check it off my list and get it back to the shop before accumulating further late fees. Popped it in the player, jumped to the scene where I'd left off (the piano / voice recital / duet bit for the German officer). Within minutes the German soldiers started putting their Christmas trees on the edge of the trenches, the singer wandered out into No Man's Land (as if under a spell, mystically, or in a dream), and the tears were pouring. It seemed so surreal, so death-defying, so dream-like, such folly. Testimony to catching up on one's rest? Or something in the film itself? Perhaps all that lead-up had a chance to work on me in my subconscious over those days: certainly as an artist, I absolutely know the need to let things lie fallow, to allow the unconscious to work them over at certain phases. Perhaps that kicked in for me as a viewer?

Anyhow, I know what you mean. I don't actually believe the element of surprise was the key factor in any of these films: I think it was more a matter of the stories "gathering to a greatness" (Hopkins) - that they needed time to build the foundation for what was to come.

On a more personal note, you say you've been doing "too much" crying at movies lately. I find that hard to believe. If you're crying, for whatever reasons, I'm guessing you're crying just the right amount. Whatever might be going on in your heart, in your life, in your spirit, is finding egress in these films. Or maybe there's nothing outside the films that contributes: maybe you're just responding to the films themselves: you've entered into them powerfully enough that they are forming a powerful connection with your soul, whether you see it coming or not. In either case, I say, good on you! Not enough is made of our aptitude as viewers to enter into a film, but you know, we are partners in that creative event. Believe me, as an actor, I know the difference in my performance between the times when I'm fully engaged in a scene, bringing to bear all my imagination and concentration, and those other times when I'm still only finding my way - and, speaking frankly, the difference in other actors' performances depending on how powerfully they are able to enter into the world of the play, the skin of the character. I see similar things coming to bear on my movie-viewing: sometimes I'm just not on my game, and can't blame the film for my lack of engagement as a viewer any more than I would blame the script for my lack of engagement as an actor.

Too many film critics have atrophied powers of empathy: their wonder and imagination and willingness to suspend judment and disbelief have worn away by too much criticism, too long standing in judgment, and they lose the ability to authentically engage with the material. Just as a jaded actor begins to simply go through the motions, rely on old tricks, "say the lines and don't bump into the furniture" in order to collect that paycheck every Thursday. it's the death of theatre, and the death of virile film criticism.

(Anyone want to borrow my soap box? I'm done with it for now.)

By the way, not exactly on the topic you've raised, but related. I was given a nifty film book for my birthday (thanks Jason!), a TimeOut publication called "1000 Films To Change Your Life: The Movies That Move Us," in which the chapters are organized not by genre or era or theme, but by the emotions they trigger; Joy, Anger, Food for thought, Desire, Fear, Sadness, Exhilaration, Regret, Contempt and Wonder. "It's about the ways - even ways their makers may not have foreseen - that films go to work on us." I like it a lot.

*

PS For all the feeling that we actors do onstage, emotions are NOT the goal. A good actor - at least, according to my training - puts the whole focus on the dramatic action of the play, what I need from the person in the scene with me here and now, what I do to them to get what I crave, how I respond to their responses: emotion is an inevitably result of immersing yourself in the scene and fighting for what you fight for, but intentionally "playing" the emotion is a deadly trap that leads to false, self-indulgent, dramatically weak performance. Sentimentality. Similarly, the success of a film (or our success in viewing it) isn't particularly to be measured by how much emotion it caused us to feel: that's just not healthy, or human, to go searching after emotion just for its own sake. Just like marriage: you simply can't feel head-over-heels infatuated all the time, the emotion of "in-loveness" is no measure of the love in a relationship, and yet... A marriage where such feelings never occur is in trouble. Same for the actor. Same for the film-goer. Even the professional.

"Christian Moviegoers Required Viewing List" (1997)

Digging around to see if I'd written a review of P.D. James' novel Children Of Men back when I used to write regularly for Christian Info (now called BC Christian News), I found a column from November or December 1997 that included the seeds of the book I'm now working on, and this blog, and all sorts of other trouble. Kind of fun...

Thinking back to Trip To Bountiful had me contemplating a Christian Moviegoers Required Viewing List. Now, I'm not saying that these are the twelve best movies ever made, or the twelve "most Christian movies" ever made - how does a movie become a Christian, anyhow? But if you want to really be a part of those watercooler discussions after church on Sunday - provided your church even HAS a watercooler - check these ones out;

Tender Mercies (1983) My favourite film. Extremely understated story of an alcoholic country singer struggling to build a new life. Horton Foote screenplay.

Trip To Bountiful (1985) Beautiful, beautiful film about a woman nearing the end of her life who resolves to see her childhood home one final time. Geraldine Page's performance in that role was one of the great performances I have seen, and Horton Foote's script a masterpiece of understatement and insight into the human heart.

Wings Of Desire (1988) Artful German film about an angel who yearns to become human, made well before the recent pre-millenial angel explosion. Don't go looking for orthodox angelology (or theology) here, but it certainly is high on many Christians' favourite film lists.

The Mission (1986) Deeply moving story of conscience and religious persecution in the 18th century Brazilian jungle.

Chariots Of Fire (1981) The first commercial film I remember seeing with an authentic, evangelical protagonist - the novelty of that fact alone made it required viewing for a generation of Christians. And what artist can forget Eric Liddell's words to his sister, concerned that his Olympic running was interfering with a call to the mission field: "God made me for China. But He also made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure."

Godspell (1973) Very much of its time, but if you can get past that, a wonderful re-setting of the gospel story.

The Hiding Place (1975) Corrie Ten Boom's story of Christians protecting Jews in World War Two Holland. Stars Jeannette Clift George, who went on to found A.D. Players in Houston, one of the first professional resident Christian theatres.‘

The Jesus Movie (1979) Produced by The Genesis Project, used widely in evangelism. Some say it's blandly literal, some are
deeply affected.

Jesus Of Montreal (1989) A remarkable Canadian film which intrigued but did not move me - maybe I hadn't been getting enough sleep. A group of actors are commissioned to create a modern "Mystery Play" (a life of Christ, not a whodunnit). The fingerprints of some of the more annoying 20th century liberal theologians drove me a bit nuts, but that didn't detract from the heart of the movie, which seems to me to have been very much in the right place.

Saving Grace (1986) A little-known, unpretentious gem of a movie about a drop-out Pope.

Shadowlands (1985) Anthony Hopkins is stunning as CS Lewis.

Spitfire Grill (1996) Small-town redemption.

Ten Commandments (1956) Cecil B. DeMille does the Old Testament: it's big, it's dramatic, it's long and it's Hollywood.

Babette's Feast (1987) This Rorschach of a film is seen as deeply affirming of Christianity by believers, and as a critique of religion by the non-religious. Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

*

Then I found this, the beginning of another list that was to have formed something of a follow-up to my first list. I didn't finish the list, nor was it published...

(Ten) Controversial Christian Movies
Amateur
Bad Lieutenant
Hail Mary
Last Temptation Of Christ
Priest
Rapture
When Night Is Falling (Patricia Rozema)

Best Films Of 2006: Vancouver Critics Weigh In

The New Year has come, the Best Of lists continue, and their abundance maketh the movie-goer's heart glad. A particularly bountiful windfall of snazzy year-end releases this time around means the theatres are packed with movies worth seeing.

The Movie City News "Big Chart" compiles all the critic Top Ten lists they can find: as of Jan 2, 214 had been tallied, giving a pretty good sense of what (mostly American) reviewers considered the best films of 2006. Now that the Georgia Straight and Vancouver Sun critics have brought forth their own selections, I've noted those, as well as the rankings of the Indiewire poll (to my taste, the most reliable of the lists or meta-lists: features only the very best critics).

As for what's showing locally, CHILDREN OF MEN (the P.D. James-derived dystopia) and PERFUME (Tom Tykwer's high-budget take on the best-selling historical-set serial killer novel) premiere this weekend. OLD JOY and MUTUAL APPRECIATION (two darlings of the ultra-indie press) are this week only at the VanCity, and I'm intrigued by CSA: The Confederate States Of America, Monday only at Cinematheque - a faux-Ken Burns doc on the premise, "what if the South had won the Civil War?" THE PAINTED VEIL is also new at the Fifth, and looks like my cuppa.

LITTLE CHILDREN is flat-out stunning, very similar in scope and tone (human scale, morally searching, contemporary literary source material) to the same director's justly acclaimed IN THE BEDROOM, just as truthful and unflinching but (unless its glories fade with time) even more complex: my friend Peg said "this is what movie making is all about," and I have to agree. HISTORY BOYS is a marvel: same extraordinary cast as the West End stage hit, a head full of ideas about ideas, the treatment of the "sexual harassment" theme perhaps glib, but adds to the pile of things to talk about after the final reel - and if you pay attention, you may find one of the film's two Christian characters a fascinating (and, appropriate to the script, complex and nuanced) study of a certain kind of integrity. Helen Mirren is as good as THE QUEEN as everyone is saying, in a film that's as restrained and royal as its subject. THE DEPARTED is potent, but ultimately I found myself distanced from the proceedings, in my head not my gut or heart, because of plot convolutions: chiefly memorable for me are Leo's performance and ultra-punchy, blackly-funny dialogue. STRANGER THAN FICTION felt a little slighter and a little slicker than I expected, but what can I say, God spoke to me through the movie (He did that a lot this Christmas, also chatting me up during AKEELAH & THE BEE, LITTLE CHILDREN and SCROOGED - clearly, He's no respecter of critical tastes). APOCALYPTO is mostly notable for immersing us - in blood, in fear, in another world - but isn't dismissable: it's premise that we're seeing a civilization under the judgment of God makes the film better or much worse, depending on your perspective. I dutifully checked out VOLVER because it keeps getting raved, and realize I need to learn to trust my instincts: I'm just on a different wavelength than this Almodovar dude, I'm afraid.

Most-anticipated not-yet-here films are PAN'S LABYRINTH, a fantasy for grown-ups set against the Spanish Civil War - if it's eye candy, it's from Bernard Callebaut's - and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, a Japs-eye-view of the horrific WW2 battle by Clint Eastwood that mirrors the Yanks-eye-view of his FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, still dug in at a Coquitlam moviehouse (what you want to bet they don't quite manage to overlap?).

And at the rental shack, SOPHIE SCHOLL has now reached the shelves of some Rogers stores, only a couple months behind our celebrated Videomatica: #2 or #3 of the year for this viewer. UNITED 93 is agonizing, brilliant, intense, and never exploitative. THE DEATH OF MR LAZARESCU is among the 2006 top three of many cinephiles, was a big hit at the VIFF. Jeffrey Overstreet has been urging FFCC (Film & Faith Critics' Circle) voters to check out THREE TIMES in consideration for our year end awards. 49 UP continues my all-time favourite documentary series, and figures on plenty of year-end lists (perhaps mine as well). THE PROPOSITION looks like a good double feature with the also nasty (but definitely worthwhile) THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA, the bastard spawn of Flannery O'Connor and Sam Peckinpah. TSOTSI has lots of fans, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE was probably Vancouver's favourite movie this past year and might make my Top Ten if I can get past my feeling that it doesn't play fair. You don't need to hear me rave L'ENFANT even one more time - it's been either #2 or #3 on my 2006 list for a very long time, and unlikely to budge. I snagged myself a cheap PV copy of FATELESS at Rogers the other day that I'm eager to watch. And hey - if CACHE counts as a 2006 movie, how come it's not ranking way higher? (Of course, foreign indie fare always faces the fate that ragged distribution and micro-marketing budgets inflict, my dearly loved SOPHIE SCHOLL, HAWAII OSLO and REQUIEM all being cases in point).

MOVIE CITY NEWS - The Big Chart
Compilation of Critic 2006 Top Ten Lists
Jan 2 (214 critics)

1 United 93 - Smith, Yamauchi, MacArthur, Monk - Videomatica, Rogers (Indiewire: 8 )
2 Queen, The - Eisner, McArthur, Monk - Fifth Avenue, Rio, etc (Indiewire: 11 )
3 Departed, The - Smith, MacArthur - Granville 7, Feb 13 DVD (Indiewire: 3 )
4 Pan's Labyrinth - "Coming Soon" (prob Jan 12), Fifth Avenue (Indiewire: 14 )
5 Letters From Iwo Jima - Eisner - "Coming Soon," Fifth Avenue (Indiewire: 19 )
6 Borat - Smith, Monk - VanEast, Paramount, Riverport, Station Square, etc (Indiewire: 15 )
7 Little Miss Sunshine - Eisner, Smith, Yamauchi - Videomatica, Rogers
8 Babel - Smith - Paramount, VanEaset, Station Square
9 Little Children - Monk - Granville 7
10 Half Nelson - Eisner - Feb 13 DVD Videomatica (Indiewire: 10 )

11 Children Of Men - - Tinseltown, everywhere (Indiewire: 9 )
12 The Death of Mr Lazarescu - - Videomatica, Rogers (Indiewire: 1 )
13 Volver - Eisner - Tinseltown, Fifth Avenue (Indiewire: 17 )
14 Army Of Shadows - - (Indiewire: 5 )
15 Dreamgirls - McArthur - Riverport, Paramount, etc.
16 Flags of our Fathers - - Eagle Ridge
17 L'Enfant - Smith - Videomatica, Rogers PV (Indiewire: 2 )
18 Casino Royale - Yamauchi - Everywhere
19 A Prairie Home Companion - Eisner - Videomatica, Rogers (Indiewire: 16 )
20 Old Joy - - VanCity (Indiewire: 7 )

21 Three Times - - Videomatica (Indiewire: 6 )
22 Inland Empire - - Dec 29 wide release (Indiewire: 4 )
23 Notes on a Scandal - Eisner - Fifth Avenue
24 The Proposition - Smith, Yamauchi, Monk - Videomatica
25 An Inconvenient Truth - Eisner, Yamauchi, MacArthur, Monk - Videomatica, Rogers
26 Deliver Us From Evil - - Oct 13 release
27 A Scanner Darkly - - Videomatica, Rogers (Indiewire: 13 )
28 Marie Antoinette - - Denman
29 Brick - Yamauchi - Videomatica, Rogers
30 Tristram Shandy - - Videomatica, Rogers

31 Last King Of Scotland - Smith, Harris, Monk - Tinseltown
32 Climates - - Oct 27 limited release (FC: 12 )
33 The Lives Of Others - - Feb 9 07 limited release
34 Thank You For Smoking - Yamauchi, MacArthur - Videomatica
35 Battle In Heaven - - Videomatica (Indiewire: 18 )
36 The Fountain - - Granville 7
37 The Descent - - Videomatica
38 Happy Feet - - Various
39 Stranger Than Fiction - Monk - Tinseltown, satellites
40 Inside Man - - Videomatica, Rogers

41 Dave Chapelle's Block Party - - Videomatica, Rogers
42 The Science of Sleep - - Videomatica
43 Good Shepherd - - Everywhere
44 Feb 20 07 Prestige - Yamauchi - Denman, Granville 7 Feb 20 DVD
45 Neil Young: Heart Of Gold - - Videomatica, Rogers PV
46 Painted Veil - Eisner - Fifth Avenue
47 Apocalypto - - Tinseltown, Rio, Riverport, etc
48 Blood Diamond - - Park, Paramount, Riverport, etc
49 Lady Vengeance - Smith - Videomatica, Rogers
50 World Trade Center - - Videomatica, Rogers

Also notable, further down in the Top 100 Or So...
History Boys - (Eisner mention) - Ridge
V For Vendetta - - Videomatica, Rogers
Shortbus - - Mar 13 DVD
When The Levees Broke - - Videomatica
Days Of Glory - - Dec 8 limited release
Iraq in Fragments - -
Water - - Videomatica
Miami Vice - - Videomatica, Rogers
Devil Wears Prada - - Videomatica, Rogers
49 Up - - Videomatica
Duck Season - - Videomatica
Superman Returns - - Videomatica
Pursuit of Happyness - - Tinseltown, Richmond Centre, Riverport, etc
Illusionist - - Jan 9 DVD
Akeelah and the Bee - - Videomatica, Rogers PV
The Road to Guantanamo - Videomatica, Rogers
Mutual Appreciation - - VanCity, Feb 13 Videomatica (Indiewire: 20 )
Cache - Harris - Videomatica, Rogers PV
Manufactured Landscapes - Smith, monk
Cars - - Videomatica
Jesus Camp - - Jan 23 DVD
War Tapes - - Videomatica
Venus
Our Daily Bread - -
Perfume - - Granville 7
Woman is the Future of man - -
Fateless - Eisner, Smith - Videomatica, Rogers
Sweet Land - -
Devil & Daniel Johnston - - Videomatica
Russian Dolls - - Videomatica
Clerks II - - Videomatica, Rogers
Bobby - -
Sophie Scholl - Eisner - Videomatica, Rogers
Tsotsi - - Videomatica, Rogers PV
Aura - -
Guide To Recognizing Your Saints - -
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada - - Videomatica, Rogers PV
Black Dahlia - - Videomatica, Rogers
Break-Up - - Videomatica
Devil's Miner - - Videomatica
Iron Island - - Videomatica
Hostel - - Videomatica
Lady In The Water - - Videomatica, Rogers
Pirates: Dead Man's Chest - - Videomatica, Rogers
Puffy Chair - -
Good German - - Fifth Avenue
Why We Fight - - Videomatica, Rogers
Lassie

And some that didn't figure in the MCN 100 Or So, but were picked by our local crix...
A Comedy Of Power - Harris
Border Post - Harris
The Promise - Harris
The Curse of the Golden Flower - Harris Tinseltown, Riverport
Riding Alone For Thousands Of Miles - Harris
Catch A Fire - Harris
I'm Your Man - Harris, MacArthur
Click - Yamauchi
The Protector - Yamauchi
The World's Fastest Indian - MacArthur
For Your Consideration - MacArthur Dolphin
Scoop - MacArthur
Shut Up And Sing - Monk

Critical Consensus: The Films Of 2006 (MCN)

1 United 93 917.5
2 Queen, The 887
3 Departed, The 867
4 Letters From Iwo Jima 571
5 Pan's Labyrinth 569.5
6 Borat 495.5
7 Little Miss Sunshine 460
8 Babel 381.5
9 Little Children 365
10 Children Of Men 343.5

11 Dreamgirls 327.5
12 Half Nelson 327
13 Volver 291
14 Flags of our Fathers 284.5
15 Army Of Shadows 278
16 Death of Mr Lazarescu 266
17 L'Enfant 212
18 A Prairie Home Companion 202
19 Casino Royale 182.5
20 Proposition 157

21 Inland Empire 149
22 Old Joy 148.5
23 Notes on a Scandal 142
24 Three Times 141
25 An Inconvenient Truth 140
26 Deliver Us From Evil 133.5
27 Thank You For Smoking 118.5
28 A Scanner Darkly 109
29 Brick 107
30 Last King Of Scotland 97.5

31 Science of Sleep 95
31 Fountain 95
33 Marie Antoinette 90
34 Happy Feet 88.5
35 Tristram Shandy 88
36 Stranger Than Fiction 84
37 Apocalypto 83.5
38 Descent 78
39 Climates 77
40 Good Shepherd 75.5

41 Inside Man 74.5
42 Lives Of Others 72
42 Battle In Heaven 72
44 Dave Chapelle's Block Party 70.5
45 Neil Young: Heart Of Gold 67
46 Prestige 63.5
47 V For Vendetta 60
48 Painted Veil 57
49 Blood Diamond 53.5
50 Lady Vengeance 52

Best Films of 2006: Critic Lists

Updated Dec 31

I think of it as the YIFF - the Year-End International Film Festival. Opens in November sometime, closes around Oscar time, when there's an avalanche of good new films at the cinemas (in time for Oscar contention) and an influx of good newish films at the video stores (in time for Christmas holidays). Everybody starts posting their year-end Top Ten (or Twenty, or Whatever) lists, awards are announced, and cinephilic listomaniacs such as myself can ring out the old year with glee.

Movie City News is a veritable cinematic Santa Claus, making a list and checking it often, compiling all the critic year-end lists into one big meta-list. ("I never meta-list I didn't like..."). Here's their latest update, including my notes on where you can see the various films. Indiewire provides a compilation of the lists of the best independent critics: their rankings are listed in brackets at the end of each line.

See you at the movies!

1 United 93 - Videomatica, Rogers ( 8 )
2 Queen, The - Fifth Avenue, etc ( 11 )
3 Departed, The - Feb 13 DVD ( 3 )
4 Pan's Labyrinth - "Coming Soon," Fifth Avenue ( 14 )
5 Letters From Iwo Jima - "Coming Soon," Fifth Avenue ( 19 )
6 Borat - Riverport, Paramount, etc ( 15 )
7 Little Miss Sunshine - Videomatica, Rogers (
8 Babel - Fifth Avenue, Paramount, etc (
9 Half Nelson - Feb 13 DVD Videomatica ( 10 )
10 The Death of Mr Lazarescu - Videomatica, Rogers ( 1 )

11 Children Of Men - Dec 29 wide release ( 9 )
12 Army Of Shadows - ( 5 )
13 Volver - Tinseltown, Fifth Avenue ( 17 )
14 Little Children - Granville 7 (
15 Dreamgirls - Riverport, Paramount (
16 Flags of our Fathers - Denman (
17 L'Enfant - Videomatica, Rogers PV ( 2 )
18 Inland Empire - Dec 29 wide release ( 4 )
19 Old Joy - ( 7 )
20 Three Times - Videomatica ( 6 )

21 A Prairie Home Companion - Videomatica, Rogers ( 16 )
22 Notes on a Scandal - "Coming Soon," Fifth Avenue
23 Casino Royale - Richmond Centre, Paramount, Riverport, etc
24 A Scanner Darkly - Videomatica, Rogers ( 13 )
25 The Proposition - Videomatica
26 Deliver Us From Evil - Oct 13 release
27 Battle In Heaven - Videomatica ( 18 )
28 Climates - Oct 27 limited release ( 12 )
28 Brick - Videomatica, Rogers
30 Marie Antoinette - Hollywood

31 Inconvenient Truth - Videomatica, Rogers
32 Last King Of Scotland - Tinseltown
33 Tristram Shandy - Videomatica, Rogers
34 The Science of Sleep - Videomatica
34 The Fountain - Granville 7
36 The Lives Of Others - Feb 9 07 limited release
37 The Descent - Videomatica
38 Happy Feet - Various
38 Stranger Than Fiction - Tinseltown, etc
40 Dave Chapelle's Block Party - Videomatica, Rogers

41 Good Shepherd - Rio, Dunbar, Paramount, etc
42 Inside Man - Videomatica, Rogers
43 Neil Young: Heart Of Gold - Videomatica, Rogers PV
44 Feb 20 07 Prestige - Denman, Granville 7 Feb 20 DVD
45 Shortbus - Mar 13 DVD
46 Thank You For Smoking - Videomatica
47 World Trade Center - Videomatica, Rogers
48 Iraq in Fragments -
49 History Boys - Fifth Avenue
50 Miami Vice - Videomatica, Rogers

51 Blood Diamond - Park, Paramount, Riverport, etc
52 Lady Vengeance - Videomatica, Rogers
53 Superman Returns - Videomatica
55 Days Of Glory - Dec 8 limited release
57 The Road to Guantanamo - Videomatica, Rogers
58 Devil Wears Prada - Videomatica, Rogers
59 Duck Season - Videomatica
60 Mutual Appreciation - Feb 13 Videomatica ( 20 )

61 49 Up - Videomatica
62 Illusionist - Eagle Ridge Jan 9 DVD
63 V For Vendetta - Videomatica, Rogers
64 War Tapes - Videomatica
65 Apocalypto - Tinseltown, Riverport, etc
66 Venus -
66 Painted Veil - Fifth Avenue
67 Our Daily Bread -
68 Perfume - Jan 5 wide release
69 Woman is the Future of man -
70 Pursuit of Happyness - Tinseltown, Richmond Centre, Riverport, etc

71 Fateless - Videomatica
75 When The Levees Broke - Videomatica
76 Jesus Camp - Jan 23 DVD
85 Devil & Daniel Johnston - Videomatica
94 Sophie Scholl - Videomatica
96 Akeelah and the Bee - Videomatica, Rogers PV
100 Tsotsi - Videomatica, Rogers PV

P.S. Movie City News also posts a tally of major film awards. Here are the leading award-winners in each category so far;

Picture: The Departed (6 awards), United 93 (5 awards)
Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth (12 awards)
Foreign Language: Pan's Labyrinth (9 awards)
Director: Martin Scorsese, The Departed (11 awards)
Screenplay: The Departed (6 awards)
Actress: The Queen (16 awards)
Actor: The Last King Of Scotland (13.5awards)
Supporting Actress: Dreamgirls (5.5 awards), Notes On A Scandal (5 awards)
Supporting Actor: Little Children (6 awards)
Animation: Happy Feet (6)

Apocalypto

I saw this one last week, and I'm still figuring out what I think of it. The utterly linear, even primal storyline doesn't provide lots of subtlety or food for thought, but it's certainly a powerful, immersive experience. I figured critics would write it off as the violent indulgence of a bigoted action-movie actor with more money and ambition than taste or judgement. Not my opinion (of Mel or the movie), but that's what I expected.

Found myself quite excited to hear Joe Morgenstern's review (which I listen to on the KCRW podcast) - guess at heart I'm still pulling for Mel. Morgenstern is a formidable film writer, Pulitzer Prize and everything. He's got some pretty bold things to say about Mel as a film-maker. He's also pretty funny.

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto is a Yucatec-language action adventure set in the waning days of the Maya civilization. After the first few impalements, amputations, rapes, eviscerations and beheadings, I thought Apocalypto might be the most obsessively, graphically violent film I'd ever seen. By the end I felt sure it was the most obsessively, graphically violent film I'd ever seen, but equally sure that Apocalypto is a visionary work with its own wild integrity. And absolutely, positively convinced that seeing it once is enough for one lifetime.

However Mel Gibson may present himself in public these days, he's a singular presence in contemporary American films; no one else is making movies like Apocalypto or "The Passion Of the Christ," let alone paying for them out of personal bank accounts. Yet he's also rooted in the Hollywood tradition of flamboyant obsessive-compulsives—such filmmakers as Griffith, Von Stroheim and De Mille who combined the power of primitivist themes with all the razzle-dazzle technique at their command.

The technique deployed in Apocalypto is elegant, though that shouldn't be surprising, given the superb craftsmanship of The Passion of the Christ. Dean Semler's cinematography, Tom Sanders' production design and James Horner's music illuminate the story of one man and his family trying to survive in the ghastly chaos of a pre-Columbian society that's grown rotten to the core. (The screenplay was written by Gibson and Farhad Safinia. If it suggests that any other civilizations are rotting, that's as the writers intended.) In the department of razzling and dazzling, Apocalypto embraces an assortment of reliable action clichés dating back to the silent cinema--brilliant chases, spectacular leaps and falls, a creepy seeress, women and children in constant jeopardy, waters rising, quicksand gurgling, lives saved by a solar eclipse, cliff-hangers on the edge of sandy cliffs. Due to the absence of ice floes off the Yucatán, there's no Mayan equivalent of Lillian Gish.

The hero, Jaguar Paw, is played by Rudy Youngblood, a Native American artist and musician making his acting debut. In a production that boasts a cast "made up entirely of indigenous peoples from the Americas," Youngblood builds on his indigenousness with a bag of shrewd actor's tricks that date back to early Marlon Brando. The result is impressive -- a protagonist who keeps our disbelief more or less suspended, and that's no easy feat.

At the outset Jaguar Paw, his pregnant wife and their young son are among the peaceful, jovial and poetic residents of a village whose worst plague is a mother-in-law reminiscent of the one played last year by Jane Fonda. When the village is invaded by stone-age body-builders with bad teeth but great costumes, Jaguar Paw is taken prisoner, made a slave and put through all sorts of hell while he tries to make good on a promise to his wife that he will return.

The film takes that promise solemnly. It's a moral fable about the primacy of the family, and other things as well: strong fathers; overcoming fear; standing up to corrupt authority; the need for new beginnings, the sanctity of the land and, again not surprisingly, given the radical fundamentalism of Mel Gibson's religious beliefs, a tacit rejection of the Christianity that arrives by Spanish galleon on the Yucatán shore. Since my Yucatec-language skills are wanting, I can't pass judgment on the quality of the dialogue, or the accuracy of the subtitles, which include the memorable phrase "We must not let this man make feet from us." I can tell you, though, that by the time Jaguar Paw's journey was over, I could not wait to make feet from the theater.

KCRW

Almost makes me want to see it again. Even if Joe doesn't.

BIG NIGHT

BIG NIGHT (1996, USA, Stanley Tucci & Campbell Scott, wr Tucci & Joseph Tropiano)
To eat good food is to be close to God. To have the knowledge of God is the bread of angels. I'm not sure what it means, but...

Maybe it's because I live in a city that's got more restaurants than patrons, maybe it's because I love to eat, I don't know why, but whenever things get too tough and I think it's time to shut down the theatre company I started a couple decades ago, I think about bakeries. I imagine Pacific Theatre is this bakery that makes these kinds of bread and pastries and cakes you can't get anywhere else, and we've got these customers that come through the door regular like clockwork to pick up their knishes and strudel and cranberry bread (especially good for turkey sandwiches, you oughta try some). It's where people get their soul food. There are other outlets, you can get some pretty good stuff at churches and libraries and other theatres around town, but nobody bakes what we do. And when I think about closing up shop, I think of all those customers, all those friends, who won't be able to get the kind of nourishment they want. Who'll have to settle. I mean, they're not going to starve, but something will be gone from their lives, and they'll be the poorer for it.

And I also think, what about me, what am I gonna do? 

I bake bread. That's what I do. I like the work, I know just how I like it to come out, I like the people who work at the store with me, and hey – if I stop baking, what kinda bread am I going to have to eat? No disrespect, but...

We could switch over to other products, put preservatives in, mass produce, there are things you can do to attract customers. But I'm just not interested: I only want to bake the stuff I want to eat. It takes time, most people don't appreciate, but hey – they don't have to buy. Wonder Bread you can get at the Safeways.

So, for better or worse, I stick it out. It's not always a living, but it's a life. 

 
I think you can see why BIG NIGHT strikes a particular chord with me. It's the story of two Italian brothers who start a restaurant – the only business as unlikely to succeed as live theatre – where they're going to cook real Italian food. It isn't fast and it isn't the most popular, but it's done right. Problem is, people want spicy tomato sauce and meatballs, people are in a hurry, and besides there's no extra money for fancy advertising. So the brothers hit on a plan: they talk Louis Prima into coming to the place, and it's obvious, in one big night their reputation and success will be secured. They fill the place with friends and neighbours – you don't want Louis Prima eating in an empty restaurant, for God's sake! – and then they wait.

And I'm thinking what it's like when you spend a year writing a play and a hundred and twenty hours and forty thousand bucks rehearsing it, and you open the darn thing and nobody comes except the comps. And I'm thinking of Luke 14:21, I'm thinking FIELD OF DREAMS, I'm thinking about divine calling, I'm thinking of Lizzie Curry who puts the fancy dress on and the beau don't come, I'm thinking of Jesus who sits down to a meal with His friends just before it all comes to a terrible end, who fulfills His calling and their worst fears all at once. But first they eat together.

There's something about food that's close to soul, that has to do with art and with spirit and with sacrament. Think of all the movies where food and creation and the Creator and people in communion are all connected up.

BIG NIGHT is about brotherhood and conflict, about compromise and idealism, about vision and calling, about the heart of an artist and the hands of a craftsman, it's even – the subtlest soupcon – about God. But mostly it's about food.

Bon appetit!

BABETTE'S FEAST, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN, TORTILLA SOUP

Verhoeven: Jesus book, not movie

Verhoeven Talks Jesus
Exclusive: On his religious project
01 December 2006
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=20061
Empire Movie News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this month’s Empire magazine Paul Verhoeven opened up about his upcoming project based, perhaps surprisingly, on the life of Jesus.

“Well, first of all it is a book,” says Verhoeven. “It may be a film after. Essentially it is about Jesus the human being. That's a big step isn’t it? To see him only as a human being, and it’s as historical as possible. It really goes into the politics of the time and tries to show a lot of things that have been buried and eliminated by Christianity. My scriptwriter told me not to do the movie in the United States because they might shoot me. So I took his advice and decided to write a book about it first.”

So are we talking more Passion of the Christ or Last Temptation? “My [portrayal of Jesus’] life will be much more realistic and much more historical. I just want to go for what is historically, sociologically and politically real, and is defendable. I mean we couldn’t have the scene of Jesus praying at Golgotha when everyone else is sleeping. How could we have a report of that when everyone’s sleeping? That’s a contradiction in the text already. So all those will be eliminated.

And Gibson’s film? “It seemed to be saying the more blood is shed the more we are purified. I mean, honestly, such a thing is not possible. Nobody is purifying anybody else. The Church, not knowing how to handle the death of Jesus, this idea had to be presented. It is the ultra-fabrication. This is a corrective to 2,000 years of Christianity. I don’t know what the title will be but the tagline should be something like ‘Getting Jesus Back!”

Well, it’s something of a break from the norm for the director of Showgirls and Starship Troopers, but it will be interesting. “I was interested in Black Magic and the Occult and then started to be interested in miracles [laughs]. My view was always, “Well this is impossible, in fact it’s self-contradictory”. So I became interested in the historical facts: what time did he get up and so on. I feel like Hercule Poirot investigating Jesus!”

For more from Paul Verhoeven on this and other projects, as well as much more, pick up this month’s issue of Empire.

Verhoeven Jesus Movie notes: Spring '94

In my files I have a photocopy of material from the Spring '94 Jesus Seminar, apparently notes by filmmaker Paul Verhoeven on a Jesus screenplay he was developing at the time. Recently the director has begun mentioning the project again (probably because Mel Gibson's PASSION made messiah movies bankable), so I figure these notes might be of interest.

*

Paul Verhoeven - Cinema Seminar

JOHN – JESUS - LAZARUS

Around the year 27 CE, John appears on the stage of history. According to one of the Gospel writers (Luke) he is a priestly family and may have had a Qumran or similar background (“Historical introduction to the N.T., R.M. Grant).
Hollenbach (“Social aspects of John the Baptiser’s preaching mission in the context of Palestinian Judaism") supposes that John was an alienated priest who, through some bitter experience (Kraeling “John the Baptist”) transformed himself into an "alienated profit of the apocalyptic cursing and blessing of God".

John starts to preach and baptize in Perea on the east bank of the Jordan. The choice of this location (Jordan, Desert) suggests prophetic intentions. When people would come to John they had to travel through the wilderness and across the Jordan (or vice versa) - symbolizing the journey from Egypt to the promised land (Webb: "John the baptist and prophet" page 364).
The baptismal act was probably accompanied by a confession of sins - sins that were forgiven by God, but de facto: by John - who apparently had a very healthy ego! The effect of John's message was that the people of Israel were divided into two groups. One, the true Israel, the holy remnant, would escape the quickly approaching judgment of God (and experience some restoration? John is never too clear about this, see Schillebeeckx "Jesus", page 106 Dutch edition). All the others, the "wicked", would be destroyed - clearly indicating the temple aristocracy, Antipas and even the Romans (Webb page 189-202).

John's baptism provided an alternative to the temple's sacrificial system as a means of forgiveness (Webb page 204-205). John in fact denied the temple aristocracy their claim to power and suggested their imminent removal from their position of authority. Because the temple rite was replaced, bypassed by John's baptism, we must view his preaching as a frontal attack on the temple (see also Schillebeeckx page 109). It was to this man that Jesus went (on his own? In the Gospel of the Nazoreans his mother and brothers intend to go too). He was struck by John's message and believed that God revealed truths through John (Hollenbach "the conversion of Jesus - From Jesus the baptizer to Jesus the healer"). Jesus’ baptism by John means that he identified with John's preaching and that he confessed his sins there and then. It also means that he saw in John an alternative to - and condemnation of - the temple. And that he was now waiting for the imminent arrival of the "expected figure" who would burn off the chaff (temple aristocracy etc.) and bring the wheat (the true remnant, now including Jesus) to the granary (Webb 288-303).

After the baptism most people would go back to their homes, reenacting the crossing of the purified through the desert and river into the promised land. Crossan (“Jesus, a revolutionary biography") points out that John was forming “a giant system of sanctified individuals, a huge web of apocalyptic expectations, a network of ticking time bombs all over the Jewish homeland" - a network that Jesus would use himself later when he started to preach his kingdom here and now.

At this moment however, Jesus becomes a disciple of the Baptist and makes friends with other disciples: Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathaniel (Gospel of John 1:37-45. There were more: the "other" disciple, perhaps to be identified with the "rich youngster" of the secret Gospel of Mark; the “beloved” disciple: and of course women). His association with John, which included participating in his discipline of dieting, fasting and prayer, must have been quite substantial - later he had to justify his relationship with John (Hollenbach "Conversion of Jesus"). Also, the length of time that he stayed there should not be underestimated (Murphy O'Connor "John the Baptist and Jesus").

From John's Gospel it becomes apparent that Jesus somehow becomes a coworker or assistant to John (Hollenbach, Murphy O'Connor): in other words, his first lieutenant. Some passages in the same Gospel could suggest that Jesus began his own baptizing ministry, then separated from John, and even competed with him (John 3:26 "he is now baptizing and everybody is flocking to him", 4:1 "Jesus is recruiting and baptizing more disciples than John"). But it seems incredible that Jesus, who later held John in such high esteem, would have tried to set up a competing ministry. At this point in his life he believed that John was the mediator for God and what ever Jesus did was under the authority of John (the above-mentioned passages can be seen as the result of competition between the early Jesus movement and the still existing John-group, after the death of both their leaders).

Jesus, as John's lieutenant (and a relative of John's? Is that why John trusted him more than his other disciples?) is a very effective promoter - "publicist" – of John's case. He speaks to the people that come to see John: "why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? To see a person dressed in soft clothes, like your rulers and powerful ones?" (Gospel of Thomas 78). Q reads here "what did you go out to see" which seems to put it more in the past, as if the conversation took place after John's death, when Jesus had already switched to the preaching of his "kingdom".

But the lines might have been spoken when Jesus was promoting the still living Baptist, contrasting the prophet with Antipas (Theissen argues that the reed points to Antipas because of first coins he was minting around 20 CE: on them was the image of a reed, "Gospels in context" page 30-39).
Jesus’ prominent position might also be deduced from Acts 18:25, where Luke talks about Apollos in Ephesus, who "was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus" and yet only "knew the baptism of John". Murphy O'Connor argues that this baptism was administered by Jesus when he was preaching John's baptism.

As time is running short John decides that more people need to hear his message. As he himself goes to Samaria (Aenon near Salim, "Shechem" in the heart of Samaria) he sends Jesus with some other disciples as his assistants to Judea (John 3:22, see Murphy O'Connor). In his immature enthusiasm Jesus also decides to go to Jerusalem (or perhaps John had asked him to do so, in order to prepare the way for his own arrival there?). In any case, when Jesus starts to present John's ideas in the temple he gets himself in serious trouble.

The temple was the largest employer in Jerusalem, and almost all the inhabitants of the city were indirectly dependent on it (especially when the temple was rebuilt from 20 BCE to 62 CE). Upper and lower classes profited from the status quo and would protect it (Theissen "Sociology of early Palestinian Christianity" page 52-54). John's preaching bypassed the temple however, and the imminent destruction by the "expected figure" seemed to include the destruction of the Temple.
Jesus, promoting John's case in the temple courtyard, announced the destruction of the building and to make his point he reversed some of the tables of the moneychangers. This was a (naïve) prophetic gesture, where Jesus tried to copy his master (desert, river crossing). As he had to defend himself in the following argument he pointed to (hid behind) the Baptist: "who gave you authority to do these things?". Answer: John the Baptist! (This is a "rabbinic" dispute: they will find the answer to their question by answering the counter question, see Boers "who was Jesus", page 42 - omitting Mark 11:31-33 as non-authentic. Also realize that 11:28 seems to follow seamlessly 11:18a, linking this dispute directly to the "cleansing", Schillebeecks page 110. In addition: in John's Gospel the "destruction" of the temple follows the "cleansing" immediately through a similar question "What miracle can you show us doing all this").

This polemic was probably highly disturbing to the audience, who were all dependent on the temple. It might've led to violent reactions and even to an attempt to stone Jesus (several passages in John's Gospel talk about stoning, i.e. 8:59 and 10:31). But Jesus and his "assistants" escape. They have to leave the city immediately. On their way back to the Baptist (John 10:39-40 reads "they tried to arrest him - he went away to the place across the Jordan where John first baptized") the news reaches them that John has been arrested by Antipas and was led to Machaerus.

The John group is confused, disillusioned. They start to scatter: Peter and Andrew go back to Galilee, some go back to Bethany. Jesus realizes that he might be the next target: he is the most prominent member of John's circle and his action in the temple got him notoriety. He hides in the Judean desert.

When we meet him again in Galilee, where he joins his former associates in Capernaum, he is changed radically.

Putting the "cleansing" and the arrest of John chronologically close together gives us the possibility of a powerful buildup to this change. There are now successive "disasters": first the failure in Jerusalem and on top of that the arrest of John. Both elements together push Jesus towards a non-apocalyptic vision, represented in the Kingdom of God "already there in action".

There might be an even stronger build up if, after the temple scene, Jesus had heard that John was executed instead of arrested. But in Matthew this is not the case: "when Jesus heard that John had been locked up he headed for Galilee" (4:12, immediately after the retreat in the desert). And later Matthew 14:13 "when Jesus got word of John's death he sailed away to an isolated place". This scene then leads immediately to the "feeding of the multitude". If we see the story of the feeding (Dodd "Founder of Christianity", page 131-134) as a cover story for an event that in reality was a political uprising we could argue that the anger and sorrow over John's death led to the rebellious sentiments.
We might then ask if the unique formation given in the Gospel of John that "they wanted to make Jesus King" was based on Jesus’ own personal performance for (at least partially) on the fact he'd been the most prominent of John's disciples.

Of course the chronology of Matthew could be false and Jesus might have gotten the news of John's death shortly after the temple scene. There might have been just a very short (and for John's disciples very confusing) period between the arrest and the arrival of this news. Or the arrest took place before Jesus went to Jerusalem (see my spring ‘93 paper "Proposal for sequence of events"). The rest might even have activated Jesus to go to Jerusalem. Was there a feeling that this was the beginning of the apocalyptic period foreseen by John? But the disaster in the temple and the death of John brought Jesus to the realization that there would not be any apocalyptic intervention by God.

If the temple scene is eliminated from the beginning of the passion it also eliminates the very convenient cause for Jesus arrest. Why then WAS Jesus arrested?

Crossan has suggested (personal conversation November ‘92) that the repeated presence of Bethany in all the Gospels (including Secret Mark) meant more than meets the eye. In my spring ‘93 paper I then focused on Lazarus, speculating that Lazarus was originally a disciple of John (if there is only one Bethany instead of two - see note at the end of this paper - John would've been working in the same place as letters live). Jesus befriends Lazarus and his sister(s). After the death of John, Lazarus falls into a post-Baptist depression (Crossan). Later, when Jesus has started his own ministry he renews the friendship and Lazarus becomes his disciple.

In that case I argued that the "resurrection of Lazarus" would be no more than a metaphor for psychological revival induced by Jesus and his new ideas. But this strikes me now as a too innocent explanation.

If the "miracle" of the feeding of the multitude is a cover story for a political uprising I would speculate here that the "miracle" of Lazarus is another cover for some (dangerous) political event.

In the Gospel of John (11:44-47) the "rising" of Lazarus results in a council meeting where the authorities plot to kill Jesus. In John 12:9 the same group "plans to put Lazarus to death, because of him many of the Judeans were defecting and believing in Jesus". Jesus seems to hesitate to go and visit Lazarus (he lingers two days at the Jordan, John 11:5). Later, when he is in Jericho after the miracle, he refuses to see Lazarus's sister (Secret Mark, between 10:48a 10:46b). And although John does not acknowledge any problem between Jesus and the Lazarus family (Jesus has a nice dinner with them sometime after the "miracle"). In mark that same scene is situated at the house of Simon the leper. (It's possible that "Secret Mark" originally read there "the house of the young man that Jesus raised" and was changed when the 46a/b passage was eliminated. My guess is however that John made the change to cover any problem between Jesus and the Lazarus family).

Free speculating now as a scriptwriter (and incited by a conversation with Crossan, January ‘94) I propose that Lazarus represented the militant wing among Jesus followers. Lazarus, like so many socio-religious revolutionaries through history, might have thought that the arrival of the kingdom had to be provoked by violent action. If Lazarus started out as a disciple of John, whose apocalyptic ideas already contained a period of destruction ("chaff in the fire") it's easy to see how this "abstract" punishment by God could be changed into active human participation in the punishment.

Lazarus could've been, in Jesus eyes, one of these men that "tried to enter/take the kingdom with violence", provoking the authorities into repressive action, first against Lazarus and ultimately against the leader of the group, Jesus himself. This would explain Jesus’s hesitancy to go to Bethany and also (as Sarah Winter pointed out to me, conversation January ‘94) the pretty extreme statement of the disciple Thomas when Jesus finally goes finally decides to go to Bethany: "let's go along too, so we can die with him" (if "him" is meant to be Lazarus here, that could certainly suggest that Thomas expected militant action - John 11:14 and 15).

Does the "raising" of Lazarus cover up for some specific event? Crossan suggested that Jesus might have gone to Bethany to restrain Lazarus, "cool him off". Did Jesus succeed in this confrontation ("fuming inwardly") with Lazarus? If not, that would explain why he avoided Lazarus's sister later on, why the authorities plot against Jesus (and Lazarus both), and why Jesus "withdraws to a region bordering the wilderness" - where he could hide in the many caves.

Another possibility is that the news that Lazarus's sister brings Jesus is that Lazarus is arrested ("he is sick"). Jesus hesitates to go to Bethany, but finally decides to find out what happened to his friend. Now compare the similarity between Secret Mark and Mark, describing Jesus’ death: "a great cry (apparently coming from the young man/Lazarus - in John changed to a cry coming from Jesus) - a tomb in the Garden - rolling the stone away" (see Crossan "Four Other Gospels" page 10 4-106: also conversation with Winter). Perhaps this indicates that Jesus, upon arrival in Bethany, heard that Lazarus was executed.

Jesus withdraws into the wilderness. Several months later, when things might've cooled off, he returns. Perhaps he was informed that the Sanhedrin has not been able to reach a verdict on him and that there is enough support in Jerusalem that he would be safe (Nicodemus's faction?). Or was the situation in Jerusalem still so dangerous that he could not enter the city openly? It does not seem too realistic to assume that the authorities feared to arrest him because of the crowds. His preaching in Jerusalem during daytime and going back to Bethany every evening could be a compression in the synoptics of the years before into one week. (John, who portrays Jesus is visiting Jerusalem several times before the passion, does not describe the going back and forward between Bethany and Jerusalem every day).

But during one night at least Jesus attends a secret meeting in Jerusalem (Mark 14:13-17 seems to point to preparations done in secrecy. John does not say that the supper is in Jerusalem. In fact in the chapter before Jesus is described as being "in hiding", 12:36). During the supper he is informed (probably by the "acquaintance of the high priest" of John 18:15) that the Romans and Temple police are preparing his arrest: Anna has decided to bypass the Sanhedrin and arrest Jesus in an undercover operation. At that point it must've become clear to Jesus that the secret gathering was betrayed. But it was not clear by whom. Perhaps they found out only months later that Judas was a traitor. The account where Judas is part of the arrest team seems strange. By making himself known as a traitor Judas would have set himself up for retaliation by the other disciples (who apparently were used to carrying swords). It is even possible that the disciples only found out that Judas was the traitor AFTER they had formed their circle of twelve. (That would in fact eliminate the argument that only Jesus can be the creator of the "twelve", as the early church would not have invented the embarrassing presence of Judas among them).

As Jesus tries to escape to Bethany he is arrested in an olivegrove called Gethsemane. (I don't think that he intended to go to Gethsemane, he wanted to go to Bethany, but the road to Bethany starts at Gethsemane).
There was a short fight. If Lazarus was still alive he could've been one of the men who resisted the arrest (and perhaps he got away, naked, as we read in Mark - also compare "naked" in Secret Mark). Or he and some others were arrested together with Jesus.

Within the next 12 hours all were crucified.

Note: the well known Bethany (1) is situated 2 miles east of Jerusalem. Another (2) is supposed to have existed about 20 miles east of Jerusalem, close to the Jordan: “All this took place in Bethany on the far side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing". This village has not been found, and is not described anywhere else.
In John 10:40 Jesus comes back to this place ("he went away once more, to the place across the Jordan where John had first baptized"-but here John "forgets" to mention the name of the place). In John 11:17 this leads to the amazing coincidence that Jesus, in order to visit Lazarus, now has to travel from Bethany (2) to Bethany (1).
Perhaps there was only one Bethany and Parker ("Bethany beyond Jordan" JBL 74, page 257-261" is right in translating the passage in John 1:28 as "all this happened in Bethany, across from the point on the Jordan where John had been baptizing".

Dec 4: Babette's Feast at VIFC's "Film Salon"

Indisputable masterpiece of "spiritual cinema" (or whatever inadequate phrase we want to try on for size today). Takes time getting where it's going, but it's all essential, recalibrating us to the world of the film, preparing us for what's to come. A very important film for many Christians.


BABETTE’S FEAST
Monday, December 4, 7:30pm
Vancouver International Film Centre

PRESENTER: John Bishop, Restauranteur
John Bishop, internationally acclaimed chef, restauranteur and promoter of West Coast cuisine, is best known for his elegant Bishop’s restaurant, considered one of the city’s best.

How perfect that one of Vancouver’s finest restaurateurs is presenting Babette’s Feast, which won the Oscar in 1988 for Best Foreign Language Film. Babette’s Feast is based on a story by Karen Blixen (a.k.a. Isak Dinesen), whose novel Out of Africa was also produced as a feature film. In the mid-19th century, two pious sisters give up their lives to serve their father’s strict Lutheran sect in a seaside village in Jutland, living a life of denial and unrequited love. Babette, a refugee from Paris whose husband and child were killed during the French civil war, comes to work as their servant. When the sisters commemorate the 100th anniversary of their father’s birth, Babette surprises them with an act of kindness and sensuality that neither the sisters nor the village could have imagined. (Hint: the recipes used in the film are on the Internet!)

*

Guarantee yourself a seat at Vancouver's finest evening of cinema and conversation!

The Cinema Salon Pass guarantees you access to all 11 events in 2007. At $95, you're also saving 10% off the individual ticket price. We're starting the 2007 season with one of Canada's favourite stage stars, Nicola Cavendish, as she presents Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot. Buy your Cinema Salon pass online or at the door.

Note: Cinema Salon will move to Tuesdays in 2007.

Cinema Salon is a one-of-a-kind event for film fans, unique to Vancover. Once a month, Melanie Friesen invites a distinguished guest to present his/her favourite film. After the screening, audiences and guests will have the opportunity to discuss the film over drinks and snacks in our spacious lounge.

Toward a Soul Food Film Course?

One of my favourite places on earth is Schloss Mittersill in Austria. A couple summers ago I led their annual arts conference. Holy smokes. Can you imagine: two weeks in a castle that's half a millenium old, talking and making art with Christians gathered from more than a dozen European nations? Musicians, painters, filmmakers, actors, writers, architects, poets... Sheesh.

Anyhow, I'll do anything to worm my way back onto their schedule again. Why shouldn't a once-in-a-lifetime experience happen twice, that's what I'm thinking. So there's been talk of something to do with film. We thought of a mini film festival, we thought of a film-making workshop course, and now we're talking about a film appreciation course. To give you a glimpse of the possibilities, here's the email I sent them this morning: all completely speculative at this point, but hey, I'm excited! And if something doesn't come of it all over there in Europe, maybe a venue or occasion will take shape on this side of the pond? Could be fun though, don't you think?

There are a lot of directions such a course could take. Indeed, it's easy to imagine a series of courses that would inter-relate and build on one another.

My greatest strength in this area is in encouraging and equipping others to look at films well, and in modeling and offering a variety of ways to integrate our faith with our experience of film (and, by extension, the other arts). I'm an amateur theologian (I have a Diploma of Christian Studies from Regent College) but a professional theatre artist (an MFA from the California Institute of the Arts, and 22 years experience as actor, playwright and director, as well as being founder and artistic director of Pacific Theatre, a professional stage company in Vancouver Canada). So my approach will always be to start by looking closely at the film itself, then moving in the direction of placing the work in dialogue with our experience of Christian faith, with scripture, with Christian thought.

One possible shape for such a course would be to survey film-makers who have a particular interest in Christian faith or Christian themes; Dreyer, Rossellini, Bergman, Bresson, Jacques Tourneur, Tarkovsky, Scorsese / Schrader, Peter Weir, Agnieszka Holland, possibly the Dardenne brothers, Kieslowski, Ermanno Olmi, even Lars von Trier?

For the most part that is a pretty daunting list of auteur directors: maybe that would be best as a more advanced course, preceded with a survey of more accessible films that might culminate in a Bresson or Kieslowski? Something like "Landmarks of Spiritual Film: Looking Closely at Faith at the Movies"? Maybe a progression from CHARIOTS OF FIRE (England), SOPHIE SCHOLL (Germany), THE MAN WITHOUT A PAST (Finland) and NOT OF THIS WORLD (Italy) through TENDER MERCIES (USA) and JESUS OF MONTREAL (Canada) or RUN LOLA RUN (Germany) or BABETTE'S FEAST (Denmark), culminating in something from DEKALOG (Poland), maybe L'ENFANT (Belgium) or SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR (Sweden). We could compare and contrast two recent films created from the same historical incidencts, REQUIEM (Germany) and THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (USA). Or look closely at the original CAT PEOPLE by Paul Tourneur, a fifties B movie which is immensely admired by cinephiles the world over, and compare it to Calvin-haunted Paul Schrader's remake in the eighties, which aimed to be a tribute but turned out to be an embarrassment.

I think two weeks would be far preferable to one. Three weeks would actually be ideal, but I don't know if you offer courses that run that long. Each "working day" we would want three to five hours of class / seminar time to interact about the films, plus an evening or late afternoon screening of the next day's film. Actually, in this day of notebook computers, we could make a number of copies available for people to view on their own as well, which could be helpful for people who would rather view selected films with different subtitles in their own language? If that were available.

Those are just a couple of ideas. Can you give me some ideas of the parameters on your end? More specifics about length, format, content. Any response to the ideas I've started expressing above? Which may spark more ideas on my end, or help me refine those?

Exciting even to be considering these possibilities!

Ron Reed