Avatar: New Age Space Smurfs
James Cameron’s Avatar is set in the future. A corporation from a dying earth is seeking to exploit the mineral resources of the beautiful planet Pandora occupied by the indigenous Na’vi people whose major city lies above a huge mineral deposit. A scientific team launch a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign to try and persuade the ‘noble savage’ Na’vi people move and allow mining to commence. To break cultural boundaries, they create ‘Avatars’, artificially created alien bodies to be ‘driven’ by human operators. If the team fail, a large military force stands ready to force the Na’vi from their home. The story sees a former marine controlling an Avatar ‘goes native’ before he organises the Na’vi resistance in the inevitable battle to come.
3D Falling Flat?
Avatar was supposed to usher in a new era of 3D cinema. Instead shows both its strengths and weaknesses of this technology. Avatar is supposed to be an immersive experience, inviting you into the life of the tribe. To a certain extent, with the costly use of 3D animation as well as cutting edge motion capture technology, it succeeds. However, despite the huge expense, Avatar still looks like an animated film and when not jumping out at the viewer, the 3D effects often resemble a 1990s ‘Magic Eye’. Moreover, the design concept of the Na’vi people is weak. Although beautifully rendered, these 12ft blue aliens with strategically placed dreadlocks accompanied by ‘tribal music’ struck me as silly and possibly offensive. As of yet no technology can replace a good script and good characters.
Pandora v New Creation
Avatar carries heavy handed, if open ended, allusions to the war on terror, mission, colonialism and the ecological crisis. The new age Na’vi religion (a kind of theistic pantheism where everyone is connected to the mother god called Eywa) is prominent. It praises the power of nature and calls people to integrate with their surroundings rather than impose their will upon it. It stresses the importance of the collective rather than the individual (the Na’vi representing an ideal humanity in perfect relationship with each other and their surroundings). However, Eywa never lives among her people, remains impersonal, contactable only through strange ritual and interested only in maintaining ‘balance’. Whereas the idealistic world of the Na’vi can only ever be an aspiration in a fallen world, we have hope in a new creation characterised by a perfected relationship with ourselves, with each other, with the environment and with a personal loving God.
2012 Review: An American Apocalypse
Imagine you made a movie combining Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. Then throw in a $200 million budget and a determination to make it ‘bigger and bolder’. You probably wouldn’t end up far away from 2012, Hollywood’s latest vehicle for a good two and a half hours of escapist CGI sequences. The result is probably as good as could be expected. The animation is impressive, if ultimately forgettable.
The incidental ‘plot’ sees the earth’s core warm due to an unexplained combination of the alignment of the planets and solar radiation. This causes huge tectonic activity threatening to end all life on earth. Global governments, aware of the coming doom build a series of Noah-esque ‘arks’ (complete with pairs of animals) to survive the flooding of the world due to huge tsunamis.
Despite the obvious biblical illusions about the Great Flood and the apocalypse, they are fairly peripheral to an expression of American conservative libertarian family values. Appealing to the Sarah Palin voter, governments are treated suspiciously. The ‘ordinary man’ becomes the hero while global destruction aids the reconstruction of a broken nuclear family. Although America has its own ark, it is one among others and built in China, perhaps demonstrating how the US is beginning to see itself as a global superpower among others.
References to organised religion are made throughout from the appearance of the Dalai Lama to the collapse of St Peter’s. Religions are shown respectfully and as having a vague common message affirming ‘faith’. Yet, religious leaders can do little more than die pathetically with their flock. Had the film been made on this side of the Atlantic, I suspect religious leaders would be treated far less sympathetically. Ultimately however, American pluralism seems little preferable to European secularism.
The Invention of Lying
This film imagines an imperfect world but one where nobody has ever lied. In conversation, people respond with brutal honesty. A fizzy drinks adverts proclaims, ‘it is basically just brown sugar water’ while the nursing home is called a ‘sad place for abandoning old people’. There is no such thing as fiction; entertainment is a dry list of historical events. Then, the lead character (Ricky Gervais – The Office) invents lying, claiming extra money in his bank account.
The most interesting and controversial section of the film comes when the main character invents religion (the film assumes that religion is a lie). When Gervais’ mother is dying, he invents the idea of an afterlife where everyone is happy and all receive a mansion. The listening doctors overhear this new knowledge and so a religious fervour spreads globally. The world demands to know more and Gervais creates a spoof Ten Commandments written on two pizza boxes. He invents the idea of a ‘man in the sky’ and is forced to construct a legalistic works based moral system to placate his followers.
Disappointingly, almost as quickly as this story arc begins it becomes incidental to the relationship with his love interest. Caught between a glossy romantic comedy and a thoughtful existentialist satire like the Truman Show, the film ends up being neither. Ricky Gervais gives his celebrity friends numerous cameo roles but they break up the pace of the film. While raising issues, the film lacks the thought and scripting to follow them through. It satires a gospel-less Christianity; materialistic, graceless and self centred. Despite its faults, it will undoubtedly invite conversation about the basis of faith and the genuine gospel message. It also affirms the importance of truth as Gervais declines the opportunity to build relationships on lies.
Creation (2009)
It is a hundred and fifty years since Charles Darwin published one of the greatest and most controversial books in science, ‘On the Origin of Species’. This film has been released to coincide with that anniversary. When I entered the cinema I expected a preachy Sunday afternoon costume drama proclaiming the merits of ‘science over ‘superstition. To my surprise, I discovered a sensitive, intelligent and engaging drama. This is no mere Richard Dawkins screenplay. In fact, the only openly atheist character in the film, Thomas Huxley is probably the most unsympathetic. The film is much less about conflict between science and religion and much more about faith, death and grief.
The Struggle for Existence
The film focuses on events in the Darwin household: Charles Darwin (masterfully played by Paul Bettany) becomes distraught after the death of his favourite daughter Annie from scarlet fever. As he tries to understand her death, he begins to lose his Christian faith, and questions the existence of God at all. Why did God allow Annie to die? Darwin becomes ill and reclusive, and his research languishes. His relationships with his children and devout Christian wife Emma (played by Bettany’s real-life wife Jennifer Connelly) fade as he becomes lost in his despairing thoughts.
One Christian minister tries to comfort Darwin saying that ‘God works in mysterious ways. Others try to assure him of God’s righteous and careful management of creation. Annie’s death, they argue, is part of Gods righteous plan. However, through his theory of natural selection, Darwin begins to see that nature is a violent and deadly place where only the fittest survive. Species are not maintained by God’s loving hand but by the ongoing battle for survival. As Darwin writes in Origin of Species:
‘As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence.’
Darwin recognises the implications of his work: could Annie’s death simply be nature’s way of weeding out the weakest in a population? Worse still, as Darwin married his first cousin, is he guilty of her death? Darwin has visions of his late daughter, being almost haunted by her memory.
Peace without the Cross?
The finest section of the film follows Darwin’s attempt to find peace. Darwin tries to find physical and spiritual healing through the use of hydrotherapy, a supposed cure-all treatment. Time and time again he is showered with water (with allusions to baptism) as he attempts to wash away not only his physical ailments but his guilt and emotional pain.
Towards the end of the film, Darwin is able to find a degree of peace, leading to the publication of his famous book. He is reconciled with his wife and with his children. One physician suggests that Darwin’s suffering will only be over when he finds faith again. It is clear at the end of the film that Darwin does not regain his Christian faith. Instead, perhaps he has faith in the nobility of evolution, an acceptance that it is the way of things.
Bright and Beautiful?
I felt that both Darwin and the Christians in the film fail to recognise the nature of the Fall. In Church, the congregation sing All Things Bright and Beautiful, extolling the glorious nature of creation. However, the reality is that God’s perfect creation has been corrupted by sin. Nature is both beautiful and cruel, as Darwin realised. As Christians, however, we can hope in a new, physical re-creation. Perhaps because of an idealised view of creation among Christians, our theology often fails to pays sufficient attention to this hope; a hope central to the message of the Good News.
I would highly recommend ‘Creation’ to a Christian audience. It is rare to discover a film that treats religious faith in such a sophisticated manner, even though it ultimately ends with a loss of faith. Both non-believers and believers are likely to be challenged by the film.
Questions for discussion or reflection
•How could Darwin’s pastoral situation have been better handled?
•What comfort can we draw from thinking about the creator God who experienced the turmoil of death and grief in giving his Son?
•How far does our theology and evangelism reflect the fact that the whole of Creation has been corrupted by sin?
•Can love, guilt or grief be a product of the ‘primordial soup’?
Looking for Eric - a fairy tale about brotherhood
Football at the Movies
It used to be a truth universally acknowledged that any film with football in it would be about as entertaining as watching Gillingham draw 0-0. However, following The Damned United, Looking for Eric is the second worthwhile football film in just a few months. Again, it has an appeal beyond viewers of Match of the Day and collectors of sticker albums. Of course, neither film is really about kicking a round ball into a net for ninety minutes. Instead, Looking For Eric is a working-class fairytale about the importance of community and brotherhood. Although imperfect, the film is thoroughly entertaining with a number of memorable moments.
‘It was a pass’
The film centres around the character of ‘Little Eric’ Bishop (Steve Evets), a football mad postal worker whose life has fallen apart. His two step-sons show him no respect, using his house as a squat, while he cannot even bear to face the only woman he loves, his ex-wife. The turning point comes when Bishop’s hero, the charismatic Manchester United legend Eric Cantona (famed for his talent, upturned collar and kung-fu kick of a supporter) ‘appears’ in his in front room. From this point onwards, Cantona becomes Bishop’s imaginary life-coach, inspiring him to sort out his own life and the lives of those he loves.
At first, Bishop assumes his cocky Gallic idol has had an easy existence with no need of anyone else. However, as the film makes clear, Cantona could not have been a success in football without his fellow players and without the fans. Perhaps the most important part of the film occurs when Cantona is asked his greatest moment in football. He selects not one of his many goals but a pass to a team-mate. Rather than simply obtaining glory for himself, his greatest moment was through helping another.
I am Eric Cantona
The director of the film is Ken Loach probably best known for classic TV drama ‘Cathy Come Home’ and literary adaptation ‘Kes’. Loach is well known for his social realist style which often reflects his own socialist beliefs. Looking for Eric is no different, featuring a group of friends from a postal sorting office. In the end, it is they, rather than just football star Cantona that become the heroes. Towards the climax of the film all the friends don Cantona masks to help ‘Little Eric’ protect his family - they all become Cantonas, all one big team helping each other just as Cantona was just one player in Manchester United football team.
The Religion of Football?
From a Christian perspective, it would be easy to see Looking For Eric as demonstration of how football has become an idol in our society. Little Eric admits the last time he was truly happy was at the last football match he saw while his fellow supporters chant, ‘What a friend we have in Jesus, and his name is Cantona’. One might even read the appearance of Cantona as a type of religious experience. While the cast sometimes use Christ’s name casually, Cantona’s is spoken with reverence and awe. However, the film also demonstrates positive aspects of football culture from its portrayal of its skill and beauty of the game to the kinship between supporters.
Brotherly love
The moral of Looking for Eric, which underlines the importance of brotherly love, has much to be applauded (even if the eventual way it is demonstrated cannot be). Although the message of the film is inspired by socialist humanism not the good news, the selfless love and support seen in ‘Little Eric’s’ fellow postal workers should be found in our own churches. True glory is found in putting others first, as Christ became our slave at the cross. The unconvincing ‘fairytale ending’ of the film reminds us that only through Christ can we be fully reconciled to one other.