Archive for December, 2006
If you were watching the 2005 Academy Awards closely, you may have noticed that one of the nominees for Best Foreign Film was a movie called Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (Die Letzten Tage). Otherwise, you may never have heard of this moving film covering the last six days in the life of a young German student executed for distributing anti-Nazi pamphlets.
It’s now out on DVD, and I recommend it. It’s not really a “Holocaust” film, because it takes place in 1943, when most German people were still unaware of the genocide against the Jews. Sophie, for example, because of her training as a nurse, is more aware of the mass killings of mentally handicapped children. Still, she mentions rumors that are beginning to arrive from soldiers on the Eastern front, rumors that only hint at the true horrors yet to be revealed.
Unlike many movies about the Nazi era, Sophie Scholl has no scenes of physical violence (even the execution is heard rather than seen). Rather, most of the action takes place in an office, between Sophie and the Gestapo interrogator Robert Mohr.
Sophie and her brother Hans belong to a small, six-person organization, called the White Rose, that creates and distributes anti-Nazi pamphlets. They usually spread them through the mail, but, on an impulse, when some pamphlets are left over, the Scholl siblings decide to spread them on campus.They know that what they’re doing is dangerous, that they’ll almost certainly be imprisoned if caught, but I don’t think either of them expected the swift death sentence imposed by a kangaroo court. Though some might find this talk-driven movie “slow,” for me, the speed at which things move to the final conclusion is shocking. I can’t imagine going to trial, and then learning that you’re going to be killed within that same day. Yet first-person sources laud the quiet bravery and dignity with which Sophie Scholl went to her death.
The movie doesn’t tell much about her life previous to these six days. Instead, we see her growth within this very brief period, as she calls upon a strength that can only be given to her by God. Yes, indeed, folks, Sophie Scholl prays, and director Mark Rothemund, though he mentions that he’s an atheist, believes that her religious belief is one of the most significant aspects of her character.
German actress Julia Jentsch’s portrayal of Sophie is riveting (Ack! I’m using a word movie reviewers always use!), both when she tries to deceive the interrogator and after she confesses. She and Hans have clearly worked out their alibis beforehand in an effort to protect themselves, but also their family and friends, and they’re so confident in declaring their innocence that Mohr is about to release Sophie—then further evidence against the Scholls arrives.
After Sophie learns that Hans has signed a written confession, she too begins to tell the truth, as bravely and confidently as she had lied before, remaining silent when asked to give evidence that would implicate others. It’s odd, but in tales of resistance against the Nazis, I find that a wide swath of ethical approaches seems heroic. There’s the absolute honesty of the ten Booms, which hardly seems practical, but is still admirable because of their complete trust that God would protect anyone potentially endangered by their truth-telling. Then there’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who completely forsook his pacifist principles to assist in a plot to assassinate Hitler. The Scholls, the ten Booms, the Bonhoeffers: all Christians, yet all acting on their Christian principles in different ways. Now, I’m mostly a pacifist, and I mostly tell the truth (or at least I like to think I do), but there’s no way I could predict what I would have done in situations like theirs. I can only pray that God forgives actions taken out of love for others, even if that love fails to abide completely by God’s commandments. No human love is ever completely untainted, after all. God knows that even better than we do.
Anyway, in some ways the most moving struggle of the film is not Sophie’s courageous stand against the Nazis, but her own struggle to come to terms with the fact that she will die in a few hours. There are no histrionics here, no attempts to manipulate the audience’s emotions, and, for that reason, I find it all the more emotionally moving.
December 17th, 2006
As promised last week, here’s my report on a talk by Philip Jenkins, author of The New Faces of Christendom: Reading the Bible in the Global South.
For this particular talk, Jenkins chose to focus on women’s experience of biblical literacy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (though his anecdotes were primarily about African Christians). A good choice, considering his audience, many of whom no doubt assumed that conservative/orthodox Christian interpretation of Scripture inevitably leads to oppression of women. It ain’t necessarily so.
Jenkins pointed out how, in the U.S., we tend to assume that “liberation theology” (emphasis on God’s care for the oppressed, the righting of social injustices, etc.) belongs to the liberal left, while “deliverance theology” (emphasis on the miraculous, healings, deliverance from evil spirits, etc.) is associated with the far right. For many Global South Christians, however, “liberation” and “deliverance” are not separate phenomena. For example, take Zimbabwean Titus Pressler, who says, “Charismatic renewal, conflict with demons, and the liberation of women are other fruits bearing directly on the churches’ mission in Zimbabwe.” You wouldn’t expect to hear that sentence coming from many U.S. Christians, would you?
Women in many (though not all) Global South churches preach, teach, and prophesy. How do Global South Christians reconcile this apparently permissive view of Pauline passages regarding women’s behavior in church with their more conservative interpretations of scripture passages regarding homosexuality? Jenkins didn’t address this question explicitly. He did, however, discuss the importance of stories about Jesus’ treatment of women (particularly the Samaritan “outsider” woman at the well and the woman with the flow of blood) and of the fact that women were the first to announce the good news about Jesus’ resurrection.
I don’t think that Jenkins meant that Global South Christians set up a Jesus-Paul dichotomy and choose Jesus over Paul, but he didn’t really explain why these passages are interpreted differently. For me, since Paul was writing to specific congregations about specific problems within them, context plays a big role: though his overall principles still apply, certain details may have been intended for a certain situation. But I’m not sure if that’s a particularly American way of reading.
Anyway, Jenkins spent much of his talk discussing “neoliteracy,” a concept describing the stage when texts are newly introduced within primarily oral cultures. New readers still bring their oral/aural background (including both a respect for authority and a suspicion of the written word) to the Bible, and so the authority of texts is confirmed by visions, dreams, and other forms of experience. There’s an emphasis on God’s continuing revelation—in ways that refer back to the Bible.
One of the most interesting moments of Jenkins’ talk occurred in the question-and-answer session, when someone in the audience asked if African Christians were theologically conservative because they had been converted by theologically conservative whites. No, answered Jenkins, in fact many white missionaries couldn’t deal with the more charismatic tendencies of Africans who began reading the Bible (and taking it seriously, including its statements about spiritual warfare). But the more indigenous churches did deal with the spiritual realm.
In fact, said Jenkins, launching into a brief tangent, did you know that today is the greatest age of witch-hunting in history?
I could see the looks of “Ah ha!” dawn on certain faces around the room. “Ah ha! We knew there had to be a catch somewhere. They may be relatively enlightened toward women, but they hunt witches! Yup. Always happens with conservative Christians.”
And, Jenkins continued, Global South Christianity is one of the main forces combating witch-hunting.
Certain faces fell.
Unlike the previous generations of white missionaries, leading Global South Christians acknowledge that witchcraft exists. But they believe that Jesus has already conquered the forces of darkness, and so you don’t need to go around burning witches. Makes sense to me.
I suspect that Jenkins is more theologically liberal than the subjects of his talk and his book, but he is extraordinarily fair. He doesn’t take pot-shots at anyone, conservative or liberal. And he significantly complicates our assumptions about different “camps” of Christians, both in the U.S. and around the world. For that, I’m very grateful.
December 13th, 2006
One: David Tennant, of course. I was pleased to see that someone over at Idol Chatter is watching “Doctor Who”! Ellen Leventry’s commentary on the recent two-parter “The Impossible Planet”/”The Satan Pit” is worth a read.
I, too, was intrigued by the spectacle of a Doctor who suddenly doubts all he has ever held for certain. I got a little bit annoyed by all the speeches along the lines of “the Devil is powerful because he’s an idea” speeches, but it fits the Doctor’s character (and Britain’s current spiritual climate). From a dramatic angle, I found “The Impossible Planet” very satisfyingly scary, while “The Satan Pit” was terribly anti-climactic. I think the episode lost its tension for me once we learn that this is supposed to be THE Satan (when, in the prior episode, we’ve been told that he’s the Beast, which is not quite the same thing). And, after all, if humans can beat big bad old Satan simply by trusting in each other, well, then, he’s not very scary, is he? Not really worthy of the title “The Adversary,” which is what “Satan” means. It’s hard to make Satan scary when the writer doesn’t really take him seriously. He should have stuck with the Beast.
Anyway, moving on to Tennant Number Two: Agnieszka Tennant (who is, I assume, no relation to David, especially since his last name isn’t really Tennant, anyway–it’s MacDonald). I just discovered an essay of hers from back in August that, in great prose, captures the main flaws of the books by John and Stasi Eldredge.
I especially like Tennant’s point that, when the Eldredges argue that all women want to be “the Beauty of the story,” they’re really talking about ornamental prettification, not true beauty. “True beauty is precarious, unbound,” Tennant writes. “It cannot be confined to pre-approved tastes or to one gender. It is wild at heart. Like Christ. And like the complicated men and women who follow him.”
Amen to that.
December 7th, 2006
An excellent article (called “The Limits of Tolerance: Will Liberal Theologians Listen to the Global South?) in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal called attention to an issue of growing importance across the worldwide Christian community: the tension between Western (and mostly north-of-the-equator) liberal theologians and more scripturally conservative Christians in the Two-Thirds world, or the Global South.
This particular article points out the blatant snobbery practiced by supposedly super-tolerant folks like the Episcopalian Bishop Spong, who said recently of his African coreligionists, “They’ve yet to face the revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we’ve had to face in the developing world.” Um, so they’re ignorant savages? That’s certainly the tone of the comment. (Though, as religious historian Philip Jenkins explains, many Global South Christians do face different struggles from their Northern counterparts: north of the equator, Jenkins argues, our primary religious struggle is against doubt, while in the Global South, Christians are more often concerned with defending the faith against other, competing religions. So there is a way in which Spong’s comment could be interpreted more positively—but, given some of Spong’s other statements, I’m not inclined to be that generous.)
Even worse is a comment made by liberal Catholic theologian Andrew Greeley: in answer to a question about the role Global South Christians would play in the future of the Church, he said, “We will depend on them for vitality. But they will continue to depend on us for the ideas.”
Oh my. That’s so offensive that it makes my blood boil.
Anyway, for a much more respectful analysis of the potential role of the Two-Thirds World in transforming Christianity (by returning it to its more orthodox roots), check out Jenkins’s new book The New Faces of Christendom: Believing in the Bible in the Global South (sort of a sequel to his earlier book The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity). You can read the first chapter online at Christianity Today.
I also happen to be attending a talk by Jenkins on this subject next week, so let me know if you have any burning questions you’d like me to ask in the Q&A session.
December 5th, 2006
Imagine this scene from The Nativity Story: a weary-looking Joseph is leading a donkey bearing the very pregnant Mary down a rocky road into Bethlehem when Mary chooses to announce, “Joseph, the baby is pressing.” “Now?” says Joseph. She nods, starts to look like she might actually feel some pain, and, right on cue, hectic, frantic music starts to play . . . and it’s “Hark, how the bells, sweet silver bells, all seem to say, throw cares away.”
Argh!!!!! Why? Why? I went to the movie hoping to escape the cloying pseudo-Christmas music that’s playing everywhere, and yet it forces upon me one of the most annoying “Christmas” songs ever, totally robbing the moment of any dramatic force it could have had.
Sadly, “Carol of the Bells” is not the only European Christmas carol tucked into the score of The Nativity Story: the first notes heard in the film are the strains of “O Come, O Come Emmanuel,” which wouldn’t be bad, if the rest of the film weren’t peppered with “Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming,” “Lully, Lullay” (yup, right when Herod orders the Massacre of the Innocents), and, of course, “Silent Night,” which almost covers up Mary’s belated version of the Magnificat. Really, it’s like the filmmakers are sending Mary the message: “Shut up about all this revolutionary stuff and be serene.”
Nativity Story isn’t a terrible movie. It does stay pretty close to the biblical record, except for a lot of time-condensing (which, as is usual in Christmas pageants, allows the shepherds and the wise men to be at the manger at the same time, creating a nice little tableau—grr!). But, overall, it seems to want to present viewers with the comforting and familiar, with a few exotic cultural trappings here and there. I’d much prefer a movie that took the familiar and re-invested it with a sense of strangeness and wonder—which is hard to do when there are Christmas carols playing.
Other than the music—which, for me, just serves as a symbol of the larger problems with the movie, the portrayal of Mary irritated me most. We were promised beforehand that the edgy director Catherine Hardwicke would present a strong, real Mary. But, as I said to Porpoise yesterday after the movie, “Mary might as well have been a cow.” A little bit harsh, yes, but really all she does through the movie is look thoughtful (chew cud, chew cud) and beatific. I think, from Hardwicke’s interview comments, that she was trying to go for a Mary who is strong in quietness, which is fine with me, but that’s not really what comes across. I’m not sure where the flaw lies. The screenwriters could have given her more lines, but since whenever they did give her lines, they were usually cheesy voiceovers designed to tell us what she was thinking (which was usually not very interesting), that may not have been the answer. As excellent an actress as Keisha Castle-Hughes is supposed to be (I’ve never seen Whale Rider), I think some of the fault may also rest with her (and with Hardwicke’s direction of her). Her eyes, while beautiful, don’t really communicate anything.
In contrast, take Oscar Isaac’s Joseph, who is the best part of the film. His Joseph doesn’t have many lines, and yet he communicates so much through his eyes, his body language, and his actions. Granted, it seems like it’s always easier to dramatize Joseph, as he’s sort of one step farther removed from the divine responsibility of bringing God Incarnate into the world. His dilemmas seem more understandably human. But this is why we so need a portrayal of Mary that captures her simultaneously bold and humble responses to her dilemmas.
While watching the film, I started imagining a version of the nativity story from Mary’s perspective, perhaps as an older woman telling her story to Luke (whose Gospel suggests that she was one of his primary sources). That way at least voiceovers would make sense . . . But most of all, I wish The Nativity Story would have captured the amazing qualities of Mary that are revealed in her Magnificat (which wasn’t originally in the movie’s script at all, and was only added as a voiceover as the Holy Family escapes to Egypt—and, as already mentioned, it’s almost drowned by “Silent Night”). (For a good analysis of these Marian qualities, check out the recent Scot McKnight article “The Mary We Never Knew.”)
As far as minor characters, the magi are included for what seems to be intended as comic relief, but really is incredibly dull. Ciarán Hinds’s Herod is suitably sneering (yay, Ciarán Hinds! I think he’s one of the most underrated actors working today, though this film doesn’t really allow him to show his skill). Gilda the Donkey puts in a fine, fuzzy-eared appearance as the Holy Family’s beast of burden (and the kind way Joseph treats her is one of the reasons we like him so much).
All in all, the movie does do a good job of capturing the people’s political expectations for a Messiah, and the need for someone to deliver them from the Roman oppression. But we don’t really get a sense of how Christ’s birth is even more revolutionary and strange than they–or we–could have dreamed.
December 3rd, 2006
Yesterday’s “quote of the day” from Christianity Today’s news web log had me rolling on the floor:
Quote of the day
“This story incorrectly stated that James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, believes people who don’t practice what they preach should undergo an exorcism. His quote, in a TV interview about reaction to the firing of evangelical leader Ted Haggard for ’sexual immorality,’ was: ‘Everybody gets exercised (worked up about it) when something like this happens, and for good reason.’”
—A correction to a November 23 Rocky Mountain News article on Dobson and Haggard, which had the subhead “Dobson: Haggard not a hypocrite, just in need of exorcism.”
Of course the Ted Haggard situation is a sad one, and I don’t wish to make light of that. But the misunderstood comment is hilarious.
December 2nd, 2006
Those clever folks at ChocolateCakeCity.com have come up with yet another mix-’em-up faux trailer, this time envisioning a George Lucas remake of the classic film musical Singin’ in the Rain.
It’s not as great as their last effort (“X-Men 3: The Last Standing Ovation”), but I cant resist the combination of a movie I love and a director I love to mock. Plus, it’s a very timely tribute (well, sort of) to the late Betty Comden, who, along with Adolph Green, wrote Singin’ in the Rain and a bunch of other musicals. Comden died last Thursday (Thanksgiving day) at a ripe old age.
“Gotta dance!”
December 1st, 2006