Movies I Love: Gone Baby Gone

The first time I watched Gone Baby Gone was probably over a year ago, and I hadn't gone back and watched it again until recently. I didn't have to. This film leaves an indelible mark on your brain, and it's not one you're going to forget in a hurry. That said, I watched it for the second time a few days ago, and it blew me away again. It's as well-acted a movie as you'll find, and it delivers several gut-wrenchingly emotional scenes, like haymakers to the heart. And to think that this gem was directed by first-time director Ben Affleck. Yes, he of such monuments of cinematic achievement as Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Daredevil and Gigli shockingly crafted a minor masterpiece on his first try. It's less shocking now, since Affleck has reinvigorated his career a bit (this movie playing not a small part in that), and has a big film in theaters now (The Town, which he directed and acts in), but when this came out in 2007, Affleck was not exactly a hot name (to put it lightly). No small wonder, then, that this movie is as good as it is.

Now, before I get any further, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm writing these posts both because I love these movies and like to write about them, and to recommend the movies for those of you who actually read this blog, so that you can enjoy them too. I must warn you about this movie, it has an excessive amount of language in it. I mean, pervasive use of the F-Bomb, among other things. It's there for a reason; the movie is set basically in the seedy parts of Boston, and the dialogue realistically paints that picture. It's part of the atmosphere that makes the movie seem so real, and ultimately makes the movie work. However, there is a TON of cursing, and if you can't handle that sort of thing, don't watch this movie. Consider yourself warned.

The basic plot of the movie is that a little girl is kidnapped, and her aunt hires private investigators Patrick and Angie (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) to help the police find her. However, things aren't so straightforward in this case. The girl's mother (Amy Ryan) is a crackhead who may not have been completely honest with the police, and who doesn't seem nearly as worried about finding her child as the girl's aunt and uncle are. To reveal anymore would be a disservice to the film, and if you haven't seen it you really should go in knowing as little of the plot as possible.

Much like Good Will Hunting, the film Affleck won a "Best Screenplay" Oscar for over a decade ago (with co-writer Matt Damon), the city of Boston is ever-present in Gone Baby Gone. In most films, the setting is fairly generic, it could be taking place anywhere, but in Gone Baby Gone, even moreso that Good Will Hunting, the city feels real and alive. This is a small story, taking place largely within the confines of this small neighborhood of Boston. It's up close and personal, and a city that is raw and not given the typical Hollywood gleam gives the movie a tremendous sense of realness, and makes the final story hit that much harder.

The movie has some great acting all around, but it really hangs on two fantastic performances. First is Amy Ryan (who you might recognize as Holly from The Office) as the screwed-up mother whose little girl gets kidnapped. She has the thankless job of playing a character who is largely despicable. We should be more sympathetic, she has lost her kid after all, but Ryan really makes the character loathsome, and kind of annoying as well. On top of that, Ryan's Boston accent was so good that apparently Ben Affleck asked her in her interview what part of Boston she's from (she's actually from New York). The other great performance is Casey Affleck, who does a tremendous job as the baby-faced private investigator. It's not a showy performance; Affleck looks young and harmless, out of his depth as a PI. He's subdued, almost mumbling his lines at times, but then has moments where he transform into, for lack of a better word, a complete badass. He really carries the film, and his performance in the movie's pivotal scene is one of my absolute favorites.

I think one of my favorite things about the film overall is that there isn't really a villain, and our heroes, if you could call them that, aren't always very heroic. Nothing is clear-cut. In fact, if anyone is the "bad guy" in this movie, it would probably be Ryan's character. The movie doesn't tell you who's right and who's wrong, what the right decision is, and I love that about it.

Now, I can't properly address this movie without revealing something that would be a real spoiler for those who haven't seen it, and since part of the reason I'm doing this is to advise people to check these movies out, that would be counter-productive. So, I'm going to write a bit about that below, but I'm making the text the same color as the background (I actually can't get it to the same color, but I think it's close enough that you won't read it with a quick glance-over). If you have seen the movie, just highlight the text to reveal it, and if you haven't seen it, then what the heck are you waiting for? Go watch it, and come back and tell me what you think :).

[Begin spoiler text]
So, how about that ending folks? I knew it was coming the second time around, but it still hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't really get emotional with movies, but that scene with Affleck and Morgan Freeman at the end is so powerful, it absolutely kills me. Like I said above, I love that the movie doesn't tell you whether or not Patrick made the right choice. You're left with an honest to goodness moral dilemma, and that's something precious few movies do. For my part, I think it's a really bold thing to do to not only have Patrick make the hard, moral choice, but to show him having to live with the consequences. His girlfriend leaves him, and the mother seems completely unchanged by the experience. That scene where she finally gets her lost child back and still comes off as an attention-craving ("Thank you to all the policemen and the firemen. I feel like 9/11 right now") hypocrite ("just never let your kids out of your sight"), it's just heartbreaking. As the movie closes on Patrick and Amanda, we're left with the same question he is, "what now?" He made the hard decision, and now he'll have to live with the consequences.
[/spoiler]

Community

No, this is not a post about the comedy on NBC (though in case you're wondering, it's the best comedy on TV, and you should be watching it). Rather, it's about the awesome blessing of Christian community.

Shannon wrote on her blog a few days ago about the blessing of being part of a big "pseudo-family". I know what she means. For 22 years, I've been blessed with an amazing family of "adopted" aunts and uncles, and countless brothers and sisters, mostly people in the church. One of the hard things about moving to Charlotte has been not having that community around me anymore.

However, one of the great things about modern technology is that, even if I'm not around that family anymore, I can still be connected. This last week, I had a second interview for a job that I desperately need to get, so as I was on my way there, I shot off a quick text message to some of my Christian brothers to pray for me, and within minutes I had responses from a dozen guys praying for me. That's such an amazing blessing [also, I got the job :)]. God has blessed me with an awesome community of friends, and all too often, I take that for granted. With all the different methods available to stay in contact with people (email, text messages, facebook, skype, etc.), there's really no good reason not to be building one another up and praying for one another, no matter how far away we might be.

“It is grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian community.” – Dietrich Bohnhoeffer

A Question of Authority

This post comes out of something that was said in my Introduction to Pastoral and Theological Studies course about a week and a half ago, that I've been kicking around in my head. We were studying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and Dr. Anderson made the point that scripture is, by necessity, self-authenticating. What this means is that Scripture is true not because the church says it is, or even because all sorts of historical evidence confirms it, but simply because it IS true. Now, I understand why this is true and must be true, but initially I didn't really feel comfortable with it. It seems far too close to that often used parody argument of why Christians believe in God. You know:

"Why do you believe in Christianity?"
"Because the Bible says it's true."
"How do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because the Bible says it's true."

You can see Stephen Colbert parody this kind of circular reasoning in this classic clip from The Daily Show. So what's the difference? Why isn't the idea of the Bible being self-authenticating a logical fallacy? Well, lets back up a second. You may wonder what I mean when I say the Bible is self-authenticating, so lets start there.

What does it mean to say the Bible is self-authenticating?
In Christianity, the Bible is to be our highest authority. It is the word of God, and there is no authority greater than God, so his Word to us must be the highest authority in our lives. Because of this, there is nothing else on this earth which can authenticate the Bible. If something else could endorse the scriptures as true, it would, by very definition, be a higher authority. So, if the Bible is truly the word of God, it is self-authenticating. It doesn't rely on the church fro it's authenticity and authority (as the Roman Catholic Church believes), it doesn't rely on historical evidence, it doesn't rely on logical proofs. Those things may be good, but they don't grant the bible its authority, they can't. The bible is true simply because it is the Word of God, and it is true.

Ok, so how is that not circular reasoning?
The difference here is subtle. What we're stating is not that "The Bible is true because it says it's true." What we're saying is that the Bible is true because it IS true, and more than that, because it is THE truth. The authority of the Bible comes from the fact that the Bible is the Word of God, and we recognize the voice of our creator. The Bible itself attests to this. As Jesus says in John 10:1-5, "The follow him, for they know his voice." In verse 14 he says "I know my own and my own know me." 1 John 4:6 says "We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." ([aside]Note, I'm not citing the Bible to prove the Bible, I'm showing that the Bible internally supports the idea of itself being self-authenticating[/aside]) Is this illogical? Well, no. Consider the laws of logic. Most of us are not going to argue that the laws of logic are not true. For example, the law of non-contradiction, which states that two mutually exclusive propositions cannot be true at the same time. That's true, we know that instinctively. However, you can't prove the law of non-contradiction, because any kind of logical proof would require the very laws of logic that you are proving. We recognize the laws of logic because they are true, not because we can prove them. In the same way, we recognize the truth of the Bible because it is true.

Ok, so if that's true, why doesn't everybody acknowledge the truth of the Bible?
Well, the Bible has a pretty simple answer to that. Everybody does, in fact, know that the Bible is true. However, we've all rejected that truth because of our fallen nature. Romans 1:21 tells us that all men know the truth of God, but we reject him and our hearts are darkened, then later says "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie." Romans 8:7 says that "the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot." In the passage I quoted from 1 John above, John says that "whoever is not from God does not listen to us." Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18 that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." The truth is the truth, regardless of whether or not people deny it. We've all rejected the truth, and it's only by the work of the Holy Spirit that some are able to recognize the Bible's authority.

Right, so why does this matter?
It all has to do with what our authority is. If the Bible is the highest authority and self-authenticating, one of the things that means is that it doesn't need us to defend it. In Amos 3, he says of God's Word that "The lion has roared; who will not fear?"and as Spurgeon says, "Scripture is like a lion. Who ever heard of defending a lion? Just turn it loose; it will defend itself." The Bible itself attests to its own truth. Now, don't get me wrong, there's definitely a place for apologetics and applying logic and science to the Bible. However, it's not the ultimate authority which gives authenticates the Bible. If the Bible is about a God who is beyond our comprehension, then we should expect that some things might not fit with our logic (the Trinity, for instance). If the Bible is about a God who is supernatural, then we shouldn't expect everything in it to be explainable by natural science. This isn't a problem, because the Bible is our highest authority. My favorite book on apologetics is Tim Keller's The Reason For God, and one of the reasons is because he goes over all these different evidences from logic and whatnot, but in the middle of it he says this: "I have not tried to prove the existence of God to you. My goal has been to show you that you already know God exists." It's the same principle. The fact that I don't have to defend the Bible is a tremendous comfort, for a couple reasons. First of all, it means that the Bible's authority doesn't rest on my ability to completely understand it. If I can't work out exactly how the Trinity works, I don't have to throw out the Bible because I can't logically explain it. Second, my ability to witness to other people doesn't rely on my ability to put forward an ironclad defense of the Bible. Ultimately it's the work of the Holy Spirit that will reveals the truth of the Bible to others, not my ability to debate and reason.

Watch. Laugh.

I have a big post coming that I'm working on, but for now, I have a little something to share. I was watching old clips from The Daily Show tonight, and was reminded of this, the single greatest clip of all time.



Enjoy

Movies I Love: The Brothers Bloom

So, I've decided to start this little feature called "Movies I Love", which I'll post semi-regularly on here. Over the past year or so, I've become kind of a movie geek, and I like to write about the movies I enjoy. Hence, this feature. These may be about movies I've watched recently, but more likely it'll focus on kind of lesser-known movies that I love, so that you, dear readers (yes, both of you), can go out and enjoy them too. So, we'll start this off with one of my favorite little gems that I rewatched recently, The Brothers Bloom.

The Brothers Bloom is a fantastical story of two con-artist brothers and their helpless mark. It's the second film from director Rian Johnson (whose first film, Brick, will probably show up in this feature sometime), and he crafted a funny, touching and beautifully shot film. The movie tells the tale of two brothers, Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody), who are the world's greatest con men. Stephen plans the cons, Bloom plays the parts. This is no Matchstick Men or The Spanish Prisoner though, and The Brothers Bloom aren't your standard breed of con artists. See, their cons are less dubious swindles as they are adventure stories. Sure, they get paid off in the end, but they've given their mark the ride of a lifetime, and in the end, everyone gets what they wanted. All of this is set up by the film's brilliantly poetic opening sequence, which lets you know right off the bat that this story is far more fairy tale than reality.

It's that fairy tale-type of atmosphere that might be the most appealing thing about The Brothers Bloom. Johnson has crafted a bright, vibrant world full of quirky, interesting characters, and you almost wish you could spend more time just wandering around and getting to know all of these characters better. Even the minor characters (like Robbie Coltrane's curator) feel fleshed out. There's a fantastic world that's been built here, and you'll catch little background details the 2nd and 3rd times around that add a tremendous depth to the movie.

The other thing that makes this movie so fantastic is the cast, which is uniformly brilliant. The three leads all give amazing performances. Brody is the character who undergoes the biggest arc, making a real transformation from dour and depressed to finding almost a childlike joy. It's the least flashy role in the movie, but the movie would fall apart without Brody anchoring it. Good as Brody is though, Rachel Weisz and Ruffalo are better. Weisz is absolutely fantastic as the eccentric shut-in Penelope. She brings a pure joy to the screen every scene she's in, but there's a vulnerability and sadness under the surface. She is, in short, great. Ruffalo is great as well, like he always is (seriously, one of the most underrated actors working today). He's got a natural charm and charisma, and he and Brody have a great chemistry.

Johnson's script is sharp and funny, and doesn't feel the need to hold the audience's hand and point out every detail that might come back into play later on. It took me a second viewing of the film before I really appreciated just how well-constructed the story is. It's not a hard plot to follow, but it rewards paying attention and multiple viewings. It's got some third act problems, but they certainly don't sink the film, and it ends on a high note.

There's a kind of child-like joy to a lot of The Brothers Bloom. It's a story about the tales we tell ourselves to get through life. As Weisz's Penelope says near the end of the film, "There's no such thing as an unwritten life, only a badly written one."

The Time Travel Question

I apologize in advance if I misspell some words. I spilled Gatorade on my laptop, and the "B" key on my keyboard doesn't work. I had to remap it to another key, but that's still taking some getting used to. So there may be some missing "B"s in here.

You have almost certainly been faced with the time travel question at some point. If you had a time machine, where/when would you go? This of course leads to a list of great moments in history that you would jump around and see. It probably also leads to questions like "can I change history?" and "can I speak the language?" Anyway, I recently read a post on The Onion's A.V. Club where they answered an interesting variation of this question (posed by comedian Patton Oswalt). I'll just go ahead and post the question in whole here, but you can also see it in the link above, along with their responses. Here's the question:

Where and when would you most want to live for five years, restricted to a five-mile radius?

Everyone says things like “Oh man, how cool would it be to be in Dealey Plaza during the JFK assassination, or see The Beatles during one of their Cavern Club concerts, or witness ancient Rome?” Well, what if you were given the chance?

Here are the conditions. You’ve been granted a hypothetical ticket to live, in comfort and coherence, during one five-year time period. Maybe you want to be in New York in Chicago during Prohibition, or Victorian London, or France right before the Revolution. (Or during—no judgments.) You’ll be able to understand and speak the language (if needed), have enough disposable cash to live at leisure, and experience whatever you want, with no need for a job. You’ll have a comfy apartment or house to return to, full period wardrobe, and as much time as you need before making this trip to study up on the period you’ll live in.

But you must stay within a five-mile radius of where/whenever you choose to live. Thus you can’t go see the Kennedy assassination, then go zipping around the world to London to watch the birth of the British Invasion, or New York for the early years of Greenwich Village. Want to see the Kennedy assassination? Fine. But then you’re stuck in Dallas for the next five years.

What historical period (and place), in your opinion, offers the most enticing experiences in one five-year period?

To that, I'll add a few caveats of my own.

1) You can't change history. When your fives years ends, you return to the present day, and everything goes back to the way it was. No going back a few years and investing in Google stock. No mucking about with history. Simply, what 5 year period would you like to experience?

2) The 5-mile radius seems to be more of a loose guideline given their answers, but the idea is that you're staying in basically one area.

So, those are the guidelines. Where/when would you like to spend 5 years?

For my answer, I immediately jumped to 3 different possibilities. I'm kind of obsessed with The Reformation right now, so I thought about 16th century Geneva. There are all kinds of interesting places to be during The Reformation, but most of them were too turbulent to want to stay there too long. I probably wouldn't want to spend 5 years in England, since the constantly shifting political and religious climate would likely end with me being burned at the stake. Geneva though, was a it more stale, and really was the heart of the Reformation. If I went to Geneva from 1555-1559, not only would I get to hang with Calvin, but that's also the period when John Knox was living and preaching there, along with all the other various reformers who fled to Geneva when driven out of their own countries.

Another possibility is, as mentioned by one of the A.V. Club staff, is Alexandria, sometime in the first few centuries. I mean, who doesn't want to hang out at the Library of Alexandria for a few years and read the most significant collection of documents in the ancient world? Ok, so, many people probably wouldn't, but I think it'd be pretty cool. Of course, it's also in Egypt (super cool) and was basically the major cultural center outside of Rome.

I'm tempted to go back to Albuquerque in 1983 simply to watch the greatest sporting event of all time (the 1983 Final Four, and the last time anyone cared about N.C. State basketball). It would almost be worth it, but then I'd have to spend the next 5 years in 1980s Albuquerque. Yuck.

Of course, the obvious choice is Jerusalem, circa 33 AD, and it's tough to argue with that. You get the crucifixion and Pentecost and you get to witness the beginning of the early church. Maybe Jerusalem from 31-35 (just to make sure we get the right year). That's hard to top.

So, I'd probably go with 1st Century Jerusalem narrowly edging out 16th century Geneva. That's tonight though, and the answer may be different tomorrow. There are tons of good answers to this, and since my knowledge of history is mediocre at best, I'm probably missing quite a few good ones. How about you, dear reader? Where/When would you go?

My Poor Musical Taste On Display

Watching American Idol is one of my guilty pleasures. Now, I don't actually watch the show when it comes on usually, I just catch replays of the performances online so that I don't have to wade through all the ridiculous padding they put in. Is the show a bit ridiculous and over the top? Yes. Are the judges complete self-parodies by now? Yes. Has the talent level thinned out the last couple of years? It does seem that way. However, the auditions with ridiculous people are occasionally funny, and ever now and then, you get some gems like these performances from last year:





As much as I kind of guiltily enjoy American Idol though, I really enjoy keeping up with the show X-Factor, which is kind of the British version of Idol. X-Factor, though, has several advantages over Idol. For one, everyone has fantastic accents, which really makes everything that much better. Also, the judges are less insufferable, and maybe it's just me, but they seem to find better singers. The biggest improvement though, is that they have their first auditions on a stage in front of a big crowd instead of just standing alone in front of the judges. The cool thing about that is that you get these normal, everyday people up on this stage, and occasionally one of them just has a natural stage presence, and you can just see it immediately. They get the crowd eating out of their hand, and it's completely different than these people just standing in front of some judges singing. It's crazy entertaining. For example, you may have seen this guy last year (this video made the rounds):



This guy was also one of my favorites from last year:



My favorites though, are the people who give no indication that they might be a great performer. The nervous or low-key people who look like they're going to be pretty bad, then as soon as the music starts up, they become a completely different person. That's always cool to me. Like this girl whose audition I saw this week. I'm not a huge fan of the song, but it's so fascinating to watch her go from super nervous to supremely confident in the blink of an eye, I can't stop watching it.



I don't know, I just think it's interesting to see these everyday people who just turn out to be natural-born performers. Anyway, since this post is really just an excuse for me to post a bunch of videos, here's a few more from this season that I like:

A Hidden City?

"Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred.

To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world."
- From A Letter to Diognetus (2nd century)

"We are so utterly ordinary, so commonplace, while we profess to know a Power the Twentieth Century does not reckon with. But we are "harmless," and therefore unharmed. We are spiritual pacifists, non-militants, conscientious objectors in this battle-to-the-death with principalities and powers in high places. Meekness must be had for contact with men, but brass, outspoken boldness is required to take part in the comradeship of the Cross. We are "sideliners" -- coaching and criticizing the real wrestlers while content to sit by and leave the enemies of God unchallenged. The world cannot hate us, we are too much like its own. Oh that God would make us dangerous!"
-Jim Elliot (1948)

"[Christianity] has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers and through their care of the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help we should render them."
- Roman Emperor Julian (4th Century)

"It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism, that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted prosperity."
– Frederic Huntington (1890)

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 5:14-16