The Hurt Locker is a war movie, but not in the same way that Saving Private Ryan is a war movie. This film has an episodic structure rather than a large overarching plot, which places the emphasis on character. This is a very good thing. This isn’t to say that you won’t be left gripping your seat, because you will. The moments of heart stopping tension just pass by more quickly and come more frequently than in your typical war thriller drama.

The film follows a squad of soldiers in Iraq who are in charge of eliminating ordinances (explosives) by carefully diffusing them or bluntly blowing them up. The job is dangerous and survival isn’t guaranteed. The film isn’t afraid to make examples of some of its characters to prove this point.

Staff Seargent Williams (played by Jeremy Renner) is a fearless tech team leader, who’s approach to eliminating bombs is unorthodox and reckless to say the least. Although Williams’ character comprises the focus of the film, he comes onto the scene later after the viewer has been acquainted with the secondary characters first. This is a smart move on the filmmaker’s part because it demonstrates to the audience the senselessness of the man’s actions in comparison to those of his predecessor.

Williams could have easily been portrayed as a two dimensional superhero who’s courage and skill allow him to do no wrong. Thankfully, both the script and Renner’s solid performance prevent this from being the case. The Staff Sergeant makes mistakes, lots of mistakes. Even when he emerges from a situation victorious or alive, you can’t help but wonder if his actions were the best way to go about things. At times we get glimpses into a deeply buried emotional core. Behind his cocky exterior is a man who feels fear and uncertainty.

The supporting cast puts in excellent performances as well. There’s a good amount of chemistry that establishes a believable love/hate relationship between the team members and Williams. It is through them that the audience is able to relate to the often times alien Staff Sergent.

The cinematography is well done. As this is a war movie, a good portion of it is shot using hand held cameras. Still, there are some beautifully shot gratuitous slow motion explosions peppered throughout the film.

This had a limited release, so it can be hard or near impossible to find showings. Check local art house cinemas or wait for this to show up on DVD. This is an excellent and thought provoking piece that should be seen.

I just found out that I am a blood type O neg. Which means that any blood I donate can be used by anyone. Conversely if I get in trouble and need a transfusion, it’s going to be harder to find blood for me. Just thought it was cool that I have that capability.

Speaking of film reviews, I’ll hopefully have one for the Hurt Locker written up soon, so be on the lookout for that.

Christianity currently finds itself in the midst of an interesting transition. Young people have shown a greater willingness to leave behind their parents’ religious traditions than they have in the past. This is due in large part to the growing minority of the non-religious and an increased social acceptance of atheism (source 1, 2 ). Still, the majority of children who grow up in evangelical households will maintain their Christian identity, although often in a form that looks significantly different than that of their parents’.

In order to deal with the conflict between growing social pressures and keeping their faith, many Christians have responded by claiming a belief in both evolutionary theory and Christianity. This approach has been especially popular among Christian intellectuals and scientists such as Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins. The Catholic church itself has taken a stance that permits if not welcomes those who are staunch believers of evolutionary theory (source).

Most often, the debate over whether or not Christianity and evolution are compatible is waged over the theory’s relation to the first two chapters of Genesis. Theistic evolutionists are quick to point out the contradictions between the creation story in Genesis 1 and the creation story in Genesis 2. They claim that this shows that the stories in Genesis are allegorical rather than historical and does not present a conflict between the belief in evolution and the belief in the inspiration of scripture. Detractors of evolutionary theory however, tend to claim that these inconsistencies are misinterpretations on the part of the reader and that the creation story is historical fact.

The theistic evolutionist’s argument regarding the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis seems quite reasonable, but the position runs into conflict with two important beliefs tantamount to Christian theology; humanity is made in the image of God and the world is in a fallen state due to man’s sin.

While many theistic evolutionists haven’t concerned themselves with these issues, a good number have done so with varying conclusions. Some take a deistic approach to Christianity and throw all semblances of biblical authority out the window. Others have argued that these issues have several reasonable answers that bridge the conflict.

The idea that man is unique and has some sort of spiritual or physical similarity with the creator is important because it makes man worth saving. It’s instinctual to know that parents protect their children and that children share a resemblance to their parent. The idea that God placed something of himself in our existence is the part of the Christian story that gives us a sense of meaning. When a man believes that he is merely part of one species in a line of hominids, it becomes difficult for him to see himself as being made in God’s image.

The idea of sentience is often brought up in this conversation. I must qualify that by sentience I am not speaking of its literal meaning, but rather the general idea of the human characteristics of consciousness not normally attributed to other members of the animal kingdom.  There is no way right now for the fields of biology or evolutionary psychology to come to any sort of conclusive consensus on when exactly humans and their close ancestors achieved sentience. This allows the theistic evolutionist to have his cake and eat it too by allowing him to believe in the fossil record while attributing his developed mind as a gift from God that separates him from the rest of the animal kingdom. If it were to come to light that other members of the animal kingdom were more emotionally and mentally developed than previously thought, I believe it would be a hard blow struck against theistic evolution.

It should be noted that some theistic evolutionists believe in a literal creation of humanity. They subscribe to the attitude that while the rest of the animal kingdom slithered and climbed its way up the evolutionary ladder, God intervened some 20,000 years ago and created us in our current form. While this solves the problem of uniqueness and conflicts less with the biblical account, it’s a minority view not held by prestigious members of the theistic evolution camp such as the previously mentioned Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins.

The idea of the fall has classically held a great deal of importance in Christian belief. Paul, who wrote the majority of the new testament, especially stresses the idea in the book of Romans. In recent history though, its importance has been downplayed by mainstream and evangelical denominations. This is due in large part to a growing amount of biblical illiteracy within America (simply put, American Christians don’t even know what they believe anymore). The fall is an important concept in Christianity because it explains the current “flawed” state of the world, it explains the source of human depravity, and it provides the reason that humanity must be saved by Jesus Christ.

The theory of evolution depends on the current state of the world. The descriptions of the Earth before the fall as described in the bible, a world without death or competition, would have Darwin rolling in his grave. Theistic evolutionists try to account for the discrepancy by downplaying the importance of the fall. They do this by maintaining that the flawed state of the world as described in the bible is a metaphor for the flawed state of the human soul. The idea of original sin is outright denied or attributed to the first sentient beings being placed in an Adam and Eve type situation.

These views downplay the importance of biblical authority in favor of finding resolution to intellectual conflict. While this compromise may help solve existential anxiety at the moment, I wonder if the future will show this to be a viable position or merely a flawed example of creative intellectual gymnastics.

I’d like to do a series on religion and it’s relation to scientific findings/reasoning. I know that many consider this topic long dead, but I feel that there’s some new perspectives and questions I can bring to the discussion.

There’s questions that I’ve wanted to ask for a long time, but have been afraid to ask. I want to explore these questions head on. I have so many great resources available from both sides of the theistic spectrum and I hope to use those to come to a better understanding of this issue.

This is a topic I’m very passionate about. Ever since I first encountered this site (warning: this site may be disturbing to your beliefs) during my junior year of high school, I’ve come to realize that this issue is not as simple as I was led to believe by Sunday school teachers or my parents.

I have an inclination towards religious belief and that’s a good part why I’ve continue to identify myself as a Christian. However, I’ve found that my ability to participate in religious activities such as prayer and the reading of scripture has begun to decay over the years. There’s been several periods where I’ve gained some respite and been able to participate in religious disciplines with some amount of fervor (just look at some of my earliest posts on this blog). However, at this point in my life I feel that if I must stop an make a careful examination of my beliefs, the beliefs of the people around me, and ask the questions that have been buried in the back of my mind.

I hope this discussion will be enlightening and constructive for everyone who reads this as well.

In a recent interview concerning his upcoming documentary (Meeting Andrei Tarkovsky), Dmitry Trakovsky (not related) talks about the difference in approaches between contemporary films and the films of Tarkovsky. One of the most defining characteristic of a Tarkovsky film is its use of extended shots, which places an emphasis on the moment. In his interview Dmitry speaks of how he feels that many of today’s contemporary films force the viewer to only be concerned with what happens next.

While Rachel Getting Married does not come close to approaching the look and feel of a Tarkovsky film, it does frequently possess a delightful sense of being in the moment. It is within these seemingly organic slivers of time that the wide range of human emotion is portrayed in a disarmingly authentic manner. Grief, anger, jealousy, joy, and love make their presence felt within the context of the celebration of a marriage and all without the taint of manipulation. Several times throughout the film I couldn’t help but wince or crack a smile as I recognized parallels between my own loved ones and the characters on the screen.

The film is seen mainly through the eyes of Kym, adeptly played by Anne Hathaway.  She’s a drug addict who goes straight from rehab to a house full of bustling and excited people. Her sister Rachel, is played also quite well by Rosemarie DeWitt.

There are all sorts of minor plots that play out through the film, most revolving around Kim and her relationship with her family, but each is small and doesn’t threaten to overwhelm the overall experience. There’s no disaster the day before the wedding or any other similar plot device to produce a false sense of excitement and pace.

The story does not shirk from showing the darker side of its protagonist, or any of its characters for that matter. Depending on how forgiving you are, you may even leave hating a few of them. Discussion may even be provoked by disagreements between viewers after the credits roll (heaven forbid a film do that!).

There’s a lack of a score (which helps to maintain its emotional honesty), but music still plays an important role. A variety of musicians and musical styles are present through the preparations and the actual ceremony. This helps to further ground the film in a sense of reality. At times the sound of a violin can be faintly heard in the background as one of the musicians practices.

It’s been a good while since I’ve seen a recent film as refreshing as this one. It’s available now on DVD, so go check it out.

I saw this based on the recommendation of my favorite movie critic, James Berardinelli, over at his reelviews site. This is listed as his number one favorite film. Since he and I have similar tastes, I thought I’d give the film a chance. The film was well received when it came out. It won seven Academy Awards in 1970, including best picture.

While I can perhaps understand why the film is so well loved by people like Berardinelli, I feel that the film’s flaws ultimately mar the viewing experience from being either entertaining or intellectually stimulating. This film has not aged well.

George C. Scott does a fine job as the general, but his performance is weighed down by self-conscious dialog. Rather than organic, the dialog feels sterile and contrived. Much of the time it was obvious that the purpose of much of the dialog was to put in a humorous quip attributed to the famous general, rather than to reach any sort of understanding of the man’s complex character.

Because of this general feeling of separation between the film and its subject matter, very little sympathy is generated for the General and his problems. This shouldn’t be the case in a dramatic biopic such as this.

Despite the problems of the film, it does succeed in several instances. The opening sequence, where Patton gives his speech before a giant star spangled banner is perhaps one of the most iconic images in American film (not to mention having been parodied a countless number of times). The scene in the medical tent where Patton slaps a scared soldier senseless was also well done in that it helped to show a perspective of the event not often shared by history books or the public.

Patton isn’t a bad movie, it’s just not a great one. Certainly if you have an interest in the general then this film may interest you, but I’d be hard pressed to recommend it to anyone else.

I’ve written on Authenticity before.

I feel that the church is missing that a lot of times. This isn’t a pointing of fingers either, I’m part of the problem as well. There’s something about Church and being around other religious people that makes me afraid to open up. It’s as if my salvation depends on the validation of the people around me rather than on God.

My Dad was talking to me recently about how he had visited one of the older people’s Sunday morning classes. I guess he was expecting little drops of wisdom from them. His thinking was that they’d lived life longer, had more experience, so they must be wiser. Unfortunately, all he heard throughout the whole class was canned responses. There may have been correct doctrine, but it was separated from feeling and experience.

Many of my friends from high school don’t come from religious families or have separated themselves from their parent’s religious beliefs. A portion of these friends are transgendered or homosexuals. This has been a challenge to me. It’s been challenging because these lifestyles are condemned in scripture. When you put a face upon homosexuality or trans-sexuality it’s harder to view it as sinful. Much of this has to do with our skewed vision of  what exactly sin is and what sinful people are like.

It’s also hard because of the way many Christians talk about transgendered and homosexual people. They speak of them with contempt and derision. They talk about them as if they were an enemy that we must irradicate or as if they were monsters who we must fear and protect our children from. I’ve heard Christians make jokes about gays going to hell and I even heard a girl laughingly blame Katrina on the homosexuals living in New Orleans. They don’t even think about how terrible Christians are at following their own sexual ideals (e.g. There’s an 11% increase in porn consumption in states that have passed anti-gay legislation).

I have a great amount of respect for the homosexuals and transsexuals I know. They are open and honest. They are more likely to stand up for what they believe in the face of opposition. Maybe this is just coming from my disenchanted viewpoint, but I feel that many of them are even more compassionate. Why is that I’m more likely to receive a hug from a lesbian who I’ve only met a few times than from someone else who I’ve known at church for years. Why does there seem to be a wall in one place that does not seem to exist elsewhere? Is the problem mine?

I think there’s some stuff we could learn from them about authenticity.