The Words

This was a layered tale about writers, aptly named The Words, with an emotional story of the regret and consequences that followed one selfish action.  I enjoyed it very much, and I think it does a good job of portraying the long-lasting repercussions a bad decision can have.  (Warning: The rest of this post contains **SPOILERS**).

Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) is an accomplished author reading excerpts at the launch of his new book, which is the tale aspiring novelist Rory, (Bradley Cooper).  Rory has been unable to get anything published, has had to stop writing full-time and get a job, (because his father refused to keep lending him money),and then finds a typed manuscript by chance, hidden in an old briefcase.  The manuscript is a masterpiece, and adds to Rory’s depression.  “In those words, he had been confronted by everything he had ever aspired to be, and the reality of what he would never become,” intones the narrator.  Later, an upset Rory yells at his wife, “I’m not who I thought I was.  And I’m terrified that I never will be.”  Surely many viewers can sympathize with Rory’s feelings of inadequacy.

picture of bradley cooper as Rory with the briefcase

“He didn’t know why he was doing it; he just wanted to feel the words pass through his fingers, through his mind.”

 

Rory doesn’t initially set out to actively steal the manuscript.  But he re-types it, word for word, onto his computer.  When his wife (Zoe Saldana) finds the document, her glowing praises are, unknown to her, heartbreaking; she says it’s “so much better than anything you’ve ever written before!”  It would be painful, but this is the moment for Rory to admit that the words are not his.  Another moment would be when he submits the manuscript to a publisher, or before he signs a deal with a literary agent.  Clay narrates that Rory goes along with the assumption that he wrote it without protest because, “There was no epiphany, no sign from the gods to point him in the right direction,” but this is a refusal to take responsibility.  He could have told the truth at any point, and when he signed the publication deal, “Rory Jansen had made his choice.”

It’s true that there are rarely blaring epiphanies from God telling us what to do, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discern what His will is in any given situation.  There are no verses to tell Rory, “thou shalt not steal credit for a manuscript thou didst not write,” but there is just plain “You shall not steal,” Deuteronomy 5:19.  (The 8th of the 10 commandments, for you trivia buffs.)  Even if Rory isn’t sure whether this act would constitute “stealing,”  there’s 1 Corinthians 10:31,

“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

There’s Proverbs 3:5-6,

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.”

Knowing whether something is right or wrong isn’t so much about memorize Bible verses on what’s forbidden as it is about looking at the situation from the perspective, what will honor and glorify God?  What does He want me to do?  Does what I am considering fit within the boundaries of scripture?  God’s probably not going to answer with a vision or sudden inspiration, but if Rory had honestly asked himself whether he ought to take credit for writing this book or not, he should have seen clearly that the answer was no.

movie still of rory and old man at the park

The Old Man who truly authored the manuscript confronts Rory about his theft.

Instead, Rory does a lot of justification for his selfishness after the fact, which crumbles when he’s forced to confront the reality of what he’s done–I imagine that scene between the Old Man (who actually wrote the book) and Rory in the park, when the old man says “No no, my friend, there’s no misunderstanding, no.  You can’t slide out of it now.  Those are my words, my stories,” is a little like what God’s judgment will be like; all the lies people have told themselves about their actions, all the ways they’ve tried to justify things that they did wrong, completely falling apart when God looks them in the eyes and says, “I know what really happened.  You can’t slide out of it now.”  (And then, if they claim it, Jesus’ blood will atone for the sins they could never wipe clean on their own.)

Needless to say, Rory’s ill-gained charmed life crumbles in the wake of this confrontation. The Old Man refuses to forgive Rory, rebuffing the thieving author’s attempts to “fix this” with, “There’s nothing to fix.  You just go like the life you’ve chose.”  And, “You can’t make things right, things are just things. No matter how hard you try to martyr yourself.”  Although he’s a victim in this, he doesn’t gain anything by clinging to anger; in a way he is twice a victim, both to Rory’s theft and to the the self-inflicted bitterness that he daily poisons his life with over it.

movie still, the old man as a young author

Ben Barnes (who played Prince Caspian in the recent live-action Narnia films) is excellent as the young version of the true manuscript author.

The publisher advises Rory not to publicly admit his wrongdoing, saying, “Don’t screw yourself for the rest of your life over one stupid mistake, and don’t you screw me.”  This is advice is obviously selfishly motivated, and is also directly contrary to Provers 28:13,

“He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.”

And of course, even though he doesn’t publicly admit to stealing the novel, by not doing so Rory has “screwed himself” for the rest of his life–he never reconciles with his wife, and he is consumed by guilt, regret, and self-doubt.  Clay says of his “fictional” character Rory, (who by this point is pretty clearly autobiographical), “Maybe he can create, but it doesn’t matter because he’ll never believe it.  He’s robbed himself of the chance to find out.”

Ultimately, The Words is a sadly accurate depiction of the truth of Galatians 6:7-8,

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

When he decided to take credit for the novel, “Rory Jansen had made his choice,” but he continued making that selfish choice to protect his own ambitions every day for the rest of his life when he did not tell the truth.  And a lifetime of sowing deceit and carrying around hidden guilt yields a sad and lonely reward.

Hugo

Let me just start by saying that everyone should see this movie!  It is my new favorite, the best that I’ve seen so far this year.  It’s a story with a message about finding and embracing one’s purpose and healing from brokenness, depicted through stunning, worth-while 3D visuals, accompanied by fantastic music and wonderful acting.  It’s a movie for movie-lovers, full of praise for cinema as “the world of imagination.”

Hugo's father described his first movie-viewing experience as being "like seeing his dreams in the middle of the day."

Based on the highly unique novel-and-picture book blend  “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” by Brian Selznick, the story centers on the young orphaned protagonist Hugo, (Asa Butterfield), who is apprenticed to help keep the clocks running in a busy 1930s Parisian train station.  On a quest to finish repairing the automaton he and his father used to tinker with together, Hugo gains a companion in the form of sophisticated-vocabulary-lover Isabelle, (Chloë Grace Moretz).  Meanwhile, Isabelle’s godfather “Papa” Georges Méliès, (Ben Kingsley), is an angry, bitter old man inexplicably upset by the children’s endeavors.

The children with the Automaton, salvaged from a museum.

One of the main themes in this film was purpose. Seen in a conversation over the yet-to-be-repaired Automaton:

Isabelle: It looks sad.

Hugo: I think he’s just waiting.

Isabelle: For what?

Hugo: To work again.  To do what he’s supposed to do.

And later, more beautifully, in an exchange between Hugo and Isabelle about how they might need to “fix” Papa Méliès:

Hugo: Everything’s got a purpose, even machines.  Clocks tell the time, trains take you places.  Maybe that’s why broken machines make me so sad–they can’t do what they’re supposed to do.  Maybe it’s the same with people–if you lose your purpose, it’s like you’re broken.

When Isabelle wonders aloud whether or not she might have a purpose, Hugo responds:

Machines never come with extra parts, you know?  They always come with exactly the right amount of parts they need.  So I thought, if the world was one big machine, I couldn’t be an extra part.  I had to be here for some reason.  And that means you have to be here for some reason too.

While there is no explicit mention of God, this metaphor of the world as a machine begs for a machine-maker, and Hugo’s assertion that everyone has a unique and necessary purpose is completely in line with scriptural passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, as well as being an inspirational sentiment.  (How much more at peace might we all be if we spent more time earnestly seeking God’s purpose for us in the world, and less time chasing shallow goals to be admired and popular, or clambering to buy the products mass marketing has told us we need, or to fit the mold society has decided we should wear?)

A depressed Méliès describes himself as "a broken wind-up toy," and bitterly states, "My life has taught me on lesson, Hugo, and not the one I thought it would: happy endings only happen in the movies."

Although this story is fictional, many of the events and characters referenced are historical, including Méliès himself.  I found it quite interesting to read up about him and some of the other historical references after viewing the movie, (though you could always read up beforehand if you don’t mind spoilers).

This film is simply terrific.  I was even impressed by the Station Inspector, (Sacha Baron Cohen), whom I had expected would be nothing more than a one-dimensional source of comic relief in the for of slapstick humor, but who surprised me with his depth and humanity.  (Even the “bad guys” have a purpose!)

I will end with the same words that Méliès uses to introduce a viewing of his films, which highlight the imaginative participation of the audience, and may be how I need to kick off any home movie-watching parties I host in the future:

And now, I address you all as you are: Wizards!  Mermaids!  Travelers!  Magicians!  Come and dream with me.

Digest Movies: pagelady’s Top 5 2011 Summer Movies

I know.  I’m way behind on my posts.  I actually didn’t go to the theater for three weeks in a row, if you can believe that.  If you’ve been following my Twitter you know what I’ve been watching, and I’ll try to get reviews for all of them up eventually.

I meant to post this a while ago, and summer is definitely over now so I guess it’s not too late.  Here are my top five movies (from the ones that I personally saw) for this past summer:

X-Men:First Class was just outstanding.  I loved the character development so, so much.  No question this is my favorite X-Men movie to date.  It’s probably best if you’ve seen the other X-men movies before watching this one, though.

Captain America: The First Avenger was a good old fashioned hero movie, and it was great.  Steve Rogers was such a good guy.  I can’t wait to see his struggle to maintain his optimism and virtue, having been frozen for 40 years, when he joins the rest of the Avengers crew next summer.  That. should. be. epic!

Rise of the Planet of the Apes cannot be hyped enough.  It was amazing.  Everyone raved over the special effects, and there is no question they were outstanding, but what I found most impressive was how much story (and emotion) was told by the wordless expressions of Andy Serkis’ motion-captured Caesar.

Attack the Block was awesome.  I loved it.  LOVED IT!  It was a joy to watch.  But I realize it won’t be for everyone.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 is obviously a must-watch.  I mean, it’s Harry Potter.  And it’s the last Harry Potter.  This wasn’t my favorite Potter film, (that would probably be Half Blood Prince or else Prisoner of Azkaban), and no movie will ever rival the books, but still…it’s Harry Potter.  And this was a good movie, full of great scenes.  And I’ve already aired all my grievances against it.

Captain America: The First Avenger

“Who’s strong and brave, here to save the American way?  Who vows to fight like a man to defend what is right night and day? Carry the flag shore to shore for America, from Hoboken to Spokane?  The Star Spangled Man with a plan!”

The lines above are from a song featured in the film.

It’s Captain America!

This film. Was. So! Amazing!  Excellent storytelling!  I had a goofy grin on my face almost the whole time with sheer delight at how good it was.  It had a great cast, plot symmetry and character parallels, unexpected twists, an overly ambitious villain, (“his target is…everywhere!”), and an admirable hero!  Plus it was chock-full of fantastic dialogue.  I gave up trying to write down all the great lines, this is one I’m going to have to go see again, and it will definitely be joining my personal collection when it comes out on DVD.

This is a Marvel comic movie.  Marvel is doing a fantastic job handling their properties, tying them all together and making me eager to see more.  It really feels like you are watching a comic book universe come to life.  Did you see Iron Man and Iron Man II?  Did you see Thor?  And the tags at the end of them all?  If so, you’ll have an extra level of appreciation for Captain America, but you can totally enjoy and follow it even if you haven’t.

The good guy (Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, played by Chris Evans) is really good.  The bad guy (Schmidt, aka Red Skull, played by Hugo Weaving) is really bad.  And just like in X-Men:First Class, their character and choices define them, not their superpowers.  Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci) describes his transforming serum by saying, “[it] amplifies everything inside, so good becomes great, bad becomes worse.”  It’s why the pathetically weak and tiny Steve Rogers is chosen for the experimental procedure in the first place, and the Dr. asks him to promise that he will “stay who you are.  Not a perfect soldier, but a good man.”

Boy, is he good.  Chasing bad guys, saving innocents, respecting women, braving the odds, serving his country, and literally incapable of getting drunk.  Even though he’s beefed up for most of the movie, what I really loved about our hero was how heroically he acted before he got his strength.  How he would stand up against “bullies” even when he didn’t actually stand a chance, because it was the right thing to do.  He was principled.  It reminded me of 1 Timothy 4:12, which says,

“Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.”

"Put a needle in that kid's arm, it's gonna go right through him."

It’s not exactly the same, but the idea that you can still set an example and make a difference even if people perceive you as too weak, small or young is inspiring and powerful.  And it’s reinforced by the fact that the other guys on Captain America’s team prove themselves to be just as heroic, effectively contributing to their missions even though they aren’t “super soldiers.”

Then of course there’s the whole good-versus-evil theme.  It’s very clear cut, very black and white.  It is interesting, however, to note the 40s-era propaganda style featured throughout the film.  (I spent some time on my other blog deciphering the lyrics to the USO song featured in the film, and they are very…propaganda-y.)  It seems so obviously manipulative, and it makes me want to re-evaluate the things I’ve seen lately.  Do I recognize modern propaganda every time I see it?

Oh man, this move was so good.  And yes, you do have to sit through all the credits to get to the tag scene, but the music while you wait is terrific.  And you will be rewarded with a glimpse at Captain America, the first Avenger’s fellow assembly members.  Summer 2012!

"I don't want to kill anyone. I just don't like bullies, no matter where they come from."

Date Night

This is a terrific movie.  I saw it in theaters, and then again this weekend as I recently found it for cheap at Wal-mart.  I watched it on my own ‘date night,’ and the movie almost made me feel guilty because watching a movie is our typical routine; I’m now inspired to be more like the Fosters and change it up a little bit.

Phil and Claire Foster are a solid married couple with kids.  They are very busy and perpetually exhausted, but they have a good relationship.  They are a team, and they have a longstanding weekly date night tradition.  They are a great couple to root for and to idolize.  They aren’t perfect, but they obviously love each other and are committed to putting in the effort to make their marriage work, and over the course of the movie they resolve many of their issues in a healthy way. (And, they are portrayed by Steve Carell and Tina Fey, two of my favorite comedy geniuses, so that’s another reason to love ’em).

Here’s an example of the way the Fosters are a connected couple even while they are stuck in their ‘routine’ date night (at the same place every week, ordering the same food):

This is a movie about making a good relationship better, about not letting your routine sap away the romance, about learning how to really work together, (Claire has a hard time letting Phil help her with their household responsibilities, saying “It’s just better if I do it myself”), and about making the decision to be proactive in saving your marriage.  Towards the beginning, another couple confide to their friends that they are divorcing, having decided that things were boring and unsatisfying and they had become “just really good roommates.”  That is a common position in our culture today; this relationship isn’t working for me anymore, I’m not happy, I want better/different things, so it’s over.

The Fosters aren’t necessarily “happy.”  They are definitely frustrated.  Their lives aren’t filled with excitement.  And yeah, they are really good roommates.  But that’s not all they are.  They are also a man and woman who truly love and care for each other, even if they don’t always seem to appreciate the others’ efforts.  And their response to the news of their friends’ divorce is to say, let’s do something different.  Let’s go on a real date, let’s get dressed up, let’s try to put some sparkle into our routine, let’s not let that become us.  It’s an incredibly refreshing and positive message.

The film earns it’s PG-13 rating, so it’s not a family film, but young adults and up should definitely take the time to check out this excellent, positive and realistic example of a healthy marriage relationship.  Besides, it’s funny!

This one is worth paying the babysitter to go see.

X-Men: First Class

I loved this movie!  It was fantastic.  There was so much CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!  It was probably more enjoyable having seen the trilogy that this film is a prequel for, giving us perspective on things like the young Charles Xavier’s drinking beer and trying to pick up chics in a bar, when we know he grows up to be the carefully reserved and proper Professor X.  We also get to see how Mystique came to embrace her mutation, how complex Magneto’s intentions and goals are, how deeply the pain of losing his mother still affects him.  There was one scene in particular that nearly moved me to tears.  And the acting, all-around, was wonderful, (with the exception of January Jones as Emma Frost).  The score was exciting enough for the film but not something I would want to listen to on it’s own, it was a little too repetitive.

What are the messages of this story?  Well, macro evolution is pretty much essential to the plot, explaining why the mutants exist, and historical evolution is repeatedly referred to, (in terms of homo sapiens outliving and possibly killing off Neanderthals), as a way to describe the inevitable conflict between the mutants and the humans.  But none of that is really the point of the story, so if evolution bothers you just pretend there is a different explanation for the existence of the mutants.  It’s not like that’s really how evolution works anyway.  (A genetic mutation that makes you suddenly able to grow workable wings and spit flaming embers?)

Much more the focus is the other-ing of any ‘different’ group of people by any other.  This has been a theme in all the X-men movies, but it’s very clear in this one particularly because of the inclusion of Magneto’s holocaust experience.  When Charles tries to convince Eric not to destroy the ships that have just fired on them, arguing “there are thousands of men on those ships, good, innocent men, they’re just following orders!”, he counters, “I’ve been at the mercy of men who were just following orders.  Never again.”  He also voices his concern that their mutant location project will only lead to persecution of their kind, saying identification is “the first step” towards marking off a segment of the population for persecution, like the yellow stars his family was once forced to wear.  We see that the newly CIA-recruited mutants have undergone harassment due to their conditions, former stripper Angel so much so that she states she would rather be objectified, naked, then get the looks people give her when they know what she is.

Going along with this theme is Mystique’s journey towards self-acceptance.  In the beginning, she is reluctant to let people see the ‘real’ her, as her naturally blue, scaly skin and yellow eyes are considered freakish by normal humans, and even some of her fellow mutants.  She detests her appearance so much, she is initially excited about the possibility of a ‘cure,’ but by the time Beast has developed one positive reinforcement from Magneto has enabled her to embrace her true form, and by the end of the film she is repeating a mantra that she scoffed at earlier, “Mutant and Proud.”  In this instance it appears that Magneto is the better man, recognizing Mystique’s insecurities and supporting her self-esteem when Xavier, her close friend for many years, seemed insensitive and unsympathetic.

It’s not so simple, in this origin story, to label either Eric or Charles as “good” or “bad”.  When Eric takes his lethal revenge on Shaw, it is Charles that telepathically freezes his friend’s victim in place, not letting go even though he had passionately argued against the murderous outcome that was only possible with his involvement.  Is Charles just as culpable for Shaw’s death, then?

That leads to the third theme that can be found within X-Men: First Class, one that echoes a sentiment spoken by the wise Professor Dumbledore at the conclusion of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets; “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”  Although the humans at one point make a decision to regard all mutants as a threat, (an attitude that develops into intense mutant persecution in chronologically later films), Shaw and his ilk are clearly villainous while Xavier’s band is clearly heroic and Magneto’s position somewhere in between.  It’s wrong for the humans to lump all the mutants together, just as it is wrong for us to characterize any particular group as sharing the same quality of character.  That the mutants have abilities doesn’t make them good or bad, threats or assets; it’s how they choose to use their skills that informs those categorizations.

We shouldn’t be so quick to judge.  We should be willing to view all people, (including ourselves), as equally valuable and unique, with something to contribute to the world, and examine our own motives to ensure we are not misusing our gifts, even if ours don’t include flying, telepathy, controlling metal or producing super sonic sound waves.

Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Eric Lehnsherr (Magneto)