COLLISION MOVIE: Review

“A debate like this is more a collision of lives than it is an exchange of mere views.”  Those were Doug Wilson’s words at the start of the film and the entire movie took shape accordingly.  The literary term for this is ‘foiling’- pitting two characters together in a way that makes their contrast more vivid … and vivid may be putting it mildly.  We see Wilson in his home, hands raised, singing the doxology before a Sabbath dinner with several children and dozens of grandchildren [as is his weekly habit], while Hitchens introduces the camera crew to those with whom he shares his home – books – every corner of his living space is crammed with them.  With grandfatherly affection, he shows off every printed word by George Orwell and – his pride and joy – the complete 20-volume edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. 

There are several implicitly polemic juxtapositions of phrase and frame – We hear Hitchens’ voice describing Wilson’s brand of religion as the purist form that fills men’s lives with guilt and misery while watching images of Wilson walk down dark hallways with a grin so wide his face is almost as broad as his shoulders; we see footage of a lonely Hitchens hunched over at his desk pecking away at a keyboard [no doubt typing an essay about how the Christian religion poisons the world] give way to images of Wilson’s home life [presumably demonstrating what such a poisoning looks like when it actually takes place] toasting wineglasses with family and then serenading the little ones as they dance in circles to “It ain’t gonna’ rain no more, no more”. 

More than the collision of lives, this film seems to chronicle a budding friendship - something Hitchens must be craving despite the regularity of momentary ‘hello’s’ from the fleeting faces of his fans, headed the opposite direction down the street.  We see Hitchens and Wilson enjoying good food, drink, and architecture; laughing through a Wodehouse quoting contest; and helicopter sight-seeing.  Far from being shrill, reactionary, or defensive, Wilson is a gentleman: jovial, articulate, and warm-hearted.  As the film’s producer Darren Doane put it, ‘what has been captured in the film is Doug Wilson loving anti-theist Christopher Hitchens and looking to win the man, not the argument.’  The harshness of Hitchens’ diatribe visibly softens as he asks Wilson to explain the noetic effects of the fall while they walk through the night after hours of debate.  Then finally in a quiet limo ride Hitchens confides that – for whatever it’s worth – if it were in his power to do so, he would not eradicate Christianity from the earth, admitting that, after all, he is no Richard Dawkins.  

After having watched the film numerous times, I have to confess that it really does seem slanted in favor of Wilson.  Don’t get me wrong: Hitchens is given his time at the mic, but Wilson is always there with the last word.  Don’t worry though - this is certainly not done is some heavy-handed way, as is proven by the many atheists who watch the movie perfectly satisfied that it portrays Hitchens coming out on top.  I think I know better though.  Wilson’s son, Nathan, was the co-director, and Doane has publically acknowledged to being both an ardent Christian and a long-time fan of Bahnsenesque presuppositionalism. 

Bottom Line: This film starts and ends strong with no lulls in between.  It is well worth watching more than once and with many friends, even if I do still squirm when Wilson cusses.  Four stars out of four.

Read more...

Double Indemnity - REVIEW - what makes a classic?

DOUBLE INDEMNITY [1944]

"How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" - Walter Neff, Double Indemnity

He could have known this and a lot more if his father had read him the Proverbs ... and if he talked to him about them ... and maybe watched movies about them too.

That was an immortal line from Double Indemnity, #38 on the AFI's list of the top 100 films of all time. But what makes a film a classic? Isn't a black and white job like this too boring and outdated to cut it in the age of computer-generated mid-air nuclear UFO collisions?

I say, no. Here's are 3 brief reasons:

1. It still kept me interested, even riveted - The fact that since its release in 1944, probably hundreds of thousands of movies have been made, and I’ve seen probably a few thousand of them in my life … yet, not only did it keep my interest until the last minute, I was genuinely shocked and surprised by the twists of the plot at least 5 times. That is a quality movie – one that doesn’t fall back on glitzy computer-generated special effects to keep my interest. It’s a quality movie, with a quality plot, directed in a masterful and discrete way that still seems fresh and interesting 65 years [and how many hundred thousand more movies] later.

2. It's artistic touches and pioneering innovations- The movie started with the beginning of the last scene then tracked backward until the final scene resumed for the conclusion. Now, I realize that 3 years before, Citizen Kane began in a similar way, but this one seemed to take that idea and improved upon it. The information we were given in the first 60 seconds provided the critical questions that carried our interest through the rest of the movie … he worked in insurance, he was desperate, everything had fallen apart in his plan, he had been shot, he was confessing to his friend, he had been seduced and probably betrayed … we take this kind of intro for granted today, but I think it was probably much more experimental in ’44 … and they pulled it off without a hitch in a way that seems flawless to me today.

3.The moral - the bad guys don’t get away; they get what was coming to them. Though this film is thought to be the first real example of dark film noir, it incarnates the 6th and 7th chapters of the Proverbs wonderfully, warning against the temptress. The downward spiral of the man is complex but clear and the characters are believable, not flat.

Cons: This is a dark film about the fall of a man who gives in to temptation and sin. There is no happy ending and there is no other character to model redemption. Because of this, the focus of the movie is on the schemes of this man, and you may at times actually find yourself rooting for him. If that is the case, snap yourself out of it. If you can't, don't watch the film.

And of course, there are a ton of solid-gold one-liners:

Do I laugh now, or wait 'til it gets funny?

Walter: You'll be here too?

Phyllis: I guess so, I usually am.

Walter: Same chair, same perfume, same anklet?

Phyllis: I wonder if I know what you mean.

Walter: I wonder if you wonder.

His name was Jackson. Probably still is.

"Margie"! I bet she drinks from the bottle.

… they got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery. Murder's never perfect. Always comes apart sooner or later, and when two people are involved it's usually sooner.

This movie is a true classic, and I give it four out of five stars.

Read more...

EXPELLED: 2 opposable thumbs way up!!

Well, we were finally able to rent Ben Stein's Expelled last night and let me tell you - it was UNBELIEVABLE! If you haven't seen this documentary, do yourself the favor. Stein far surpassed my highest expectations and I'm not exaggerating.

The film clearly communicated the rationality of ID; the inescapable links between Darwinism and racism, nihilism, determinism, ethnic cleansing, abortion, euthanasia, and atheism; the FACT that worldview commitments inform our attempts at science and not vice versa; how superficial and inadequate most attempts to reconcile evolution and the Bible are; there was even mention of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and Eugenics growing out of the practical application of Darwinism!!!

I've never seen such a poignant demonstration of Romans-one truth suppression. Where's all the evidence? Why is God hiding Himself? [asks Richard Dawkins in a final scene]: Perhaps ... no, certainly ... it is we who work feverishly to hide Him. Exquisite.

Read more...

I.O.USA-ENDORSEMENT

In the house of the wise are savings of delicious food and oil, but a foolish man spends all he has. - Proverbs 21.20

The Huffington Post called IOUSA "the single most important film you will see this year[2008]." I am inclined to agree [w/ exception of Expelled].

Watch the entire thing here, thanks to google.video.

Read more...