Spoken Word + Electronica. I call it, “Astro Poetry.”
Archive | Media RSS feed for this section
We Bought a Zoo
18 Apr
You might remember a little while ago seeing a movie poster depicting a Zebra with a bow on its head. You may have even seen Matt Damon and Scarlett Johansson’s names on it an thought to yourself: Hm. Both of those people are pretty famous. Wonder why I haven’t heard of this movie… And then you might have gone on into the movie theatre to see something ridiculous like Real Steel. Or, you could’ve been like me and were looking for something to watch on date night with your wife. You might have looked it up and thought: Well, at least it’s PG. Might as well. And then you might have walked out of the theatre in tears because it was so good. That’s right. You should go buy this movie, which just came out on DVD.
There is a certain kind of movie. Movies that aren’t always action-packed or suspenseful, but instead are filled with characters you fall in love with. They are real, human, whole-hearted characters. The kind of characters who make you feel like they are a part of your family, simply because you want them to be. These movies are often focused on a range of topics, but more than anything else they are simply about a life well lived. Not scrupulously examined and planned. Not wasted in listlessness, but lived passionately from the heart and a beautiful set of values. I am addicted to these movies, and they only come out ever so often, but We Bought a Zoo is one of them.
Spoilers Ahead:
We Bought a Zoo is about a Benjamin Mee (Damon), an adventure writer grappling with the death of his wife. Amid the struggle to somehow move on with life while staying true to his love for his late wife, he is challenged with becoming a single father to his teenage son Dylan and kindergarten daughter Rosie. Somewhere in this midst of it all, it just makes sense to Benjamin to buy and save a struggling Zoo. “Why not?” He explains later in the movie that it was an attempt to move on from the passing of his wife but, as it turns out her memory follows him to the zoo. This is most clearly illustrated in Ben’s relationship to Spar, the zoo’s dying Bengalese Tiger. Johansson’s character Kelly Foster is the primary zookeeper who struggles with her affection for Benjamin while trying to convince him that it is time to let go of Spar. Benjamin’s journey to do so eventually opens him up to repairing a strained relationship with his son, and he finally realizes that it is possible to move on from the loss of a loved one with life-affirming hope all the while holding onto the memory of the good that person brought into his life. All it takes it 20 seconds of insane courage.
Philippians 4:8
This is the kind of artwork Paul must have had in mind when he wrote Philippians 4:8. It is life-affirming, people-affirming and it puts the kind of love the Father has for us first. I find it profound how a movie that may have not been made by Christians at all can preach the Gospel by showing it. It is as if God through this film is saying, “This is how you do family when you are alive in Christ. It is messy, imperfect, and utterly human… But it’s sopping with hope. It’s drenched in goodness. It abides by the law of love.” Perhaps the best picture I can come up with to illustrate the heart of this movie is in the end, when we see that the Mee’s along with the zookeepers, who had become a part of their family, are able to open the park. We see a success story not just of a small business but of a family who have become unified in the process. We see tourists enjoying the park while flying red kites, which previously had been described as a trigger for Benjamin. A painful reminder of his late wife. But they had become something beautiful. An ultimate sign that Benjamin had discovered how to celebrate all the wonderful things about his wife, and still move on into a happy future with his children.
I am not suggesting that you go see this movie. I am asking you to please go see it. In the words of Rosie Mee, you’re happy will be too loud after watching it.
The Hunger Games, Part 2.
14 Apr
A couple weeks ago, I reviewed the Hunger Games in its incarnation as a book. I hadn’t seen the movie when I read the book and wrote the review, but I promised a follow up after having seen the movie. It’s generally accepted that books are always better than movies, but some stories are more well-translated to film than others. Sometimes this is because of the integrity of the story, sometimes it’s not. I must say, this was a well done translation to film.
Beforehand, I had been told that the movie “follows the book pretty closely,” and for the most part, it did. I could almost name the chapter of the book as I was watching. But it was actually the few departures from the book I found most telling of the film, because to move from a 348 page book to a 142-ish page script is quite a feat without sacrificing precious little pages on a change. So, the filmakers (which included author Suzanne Collins) must have had very good reason to do so.
Spoilers Ahead:
Some of the more minor changes were for fixing problems that arose from the voice change in the adaptation. Here’s what I mean by that: The book was told in the first-person and movies often have no choice but to be in third-person, because it’s annoying to watch a movie with someone narrating the whole thing. So there were some tricks the director had to pull in order to maintain the story. For example, when Katniss finds herself trapped in a tree and, with Rue’s help, devises a plan to release the tracker jackers on her adversaries, the audience needed to know what tracker jackers are. After all, no normal wasps can kill a human that quickly, so it would warrant some explanation when they do. In the book, we are taken into Katniss’ head, where she explains to us the origin of the genetically engineered wasps, while in the movies we cut to a scene of the show’s commentators giving an explanation of the creatures. Another of these changes was focused on the dog-like creatures in the end. If you remember from my review of the book, this was my least favorite scene, because the beasts just seemed like an anti deus ex machina that came out of nowhere for the sole purpose of keeping the story interesting. In the movie, we are shown a scene of a game-maker working on a hologram of the dog and placing it in the arena. This unwittingly helped the story because it gave us some forewarning.
The biggest change, however, was the movie’s side-plot involving the Head Game-Maker and his meetings with President Snow. In the movie there were many cut scenes involving Snow’s discontent with the amount of hope Katniss was creating in the oppressed people of his country and the Game-Maker’s struggle to contain it, resulting in his eventual failure and execution. I have to say, this side-plot was a game changer for me. I loved it. Not only did it explain the dog-like creatures in a way the book didn’t, but it addressed one of the biggest problems I had with the book, and that was it’s hopelessness. While it was still Katniss struggling against an impossibly strong totalitarian government, the Game-Maker became a definite antagonist who Katniss eventually defeated, though she had not technically even meet him. This made the suggestion for us the audience that perhaps it was possible for good to triumph over evil.
Philippians 4:8
There’s no way to get around it. The subject matter of the Hunger Games story is grizzly and brutal. It goes beyond the question of simple violence, because it isn’t just about enemies fighting for something they believe in. It’s about kids forced to become enemies over something they don’t believe in, or else be killed. This subject alone makes a case for questioning this film as a follower of Jesus, because this is not a subject that is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, or commendable. However in light of the full story, we do get some elements of good vs. evil, and the struggle not to succumb to the manipulation of evil men. I would say that if there is some line between what we should be for and against in the media, this is on or close to the line. I would certainly not want my children to see it if I was a parent. There is, of course, a concern raised over the portrayal of violence in film, as well as sexuality and I have to say, I was pleased that this movie was not as gruesome as it could have been, and there were even a few scenes depicting Katniss and Peeta kissing that I have concerns over. Not because they were inappropriate, but because Hollywood tends to over-sexualize things until they are inappropriate. I was pleasantly surprised to find that this was not the case in the Hunger Games. Still, consider yourself strongly cautioned for the violent and brutal nature of this movie’s theme. And please, leave the kids at home.
