"Man of Steel" - A Tale of Two Saviors

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR MAN OF STEEL.

It's not easy having superpowers. They set you apart from everyone else. The question is, will you use that power to destroy or to become a symbol, an ideal for humanity to strive towards? This is a central theme in Zack Snyder's oft-criticized Superman movie, Man of Steel. The movie presents us with two would-be saviors. I'm not talking about Christ figures here. I'm talking about two characters that have the power to save their people. First we have General Zod (Michael Shannon), a military officer with a desire to save his fellow Kryptonians from extinction. Unfortunately, preserving his people means destroying humanity. Enter Kal-El, aka Superman (Henry Cavill), another Kryptonian who is the only person standing between Zod and humanity. Kal-El believes in the sanctity of life, and he is not willing to stand by while Kryptonians destroy humanity in order to preserve themselves.

Because of this comparison between these two characters, Man of Steel is more than just an origin story for Superman. It wrestles with the question of how far is too far when trying to save people. At what point do the ends justify the means? Even when the film reaches its controversial conclusion, it is still asking these questions. The dilemma that Superman is faced with forces him to deal with this very issue. Should he kill Zod, or should he allow Zod to kill more people?

Of course, Superman chooses to kill Zod in order to stop him from killing a group of people. This, along with the massive amount of collateral damage that Superman's fight with Zod causes has generated online controversy. Man of Steel's haters claim that Superman would not have such little regard for life. He would never allow so much collateral damage and he certainly would not kill. Therefore, the film's ending is not a good ending for a Superman film. I would disagree with this conclusion. As the Youtube channel CinemaWins pointed out in their video about Man of Steel, this is a movie about Superman's origin story. Superman had just learned to fly when Zod arrives on Earth. Of course Superman's going to make mistakes when fighting someone who at the very least matches him in terms of strength. In addition, he shows immediate regret over killing Zod even though he did it to save someone else. Part of Man of Steel's job as an origin film is to present us with events in Superman's life that contribute toward making him into the hero that we all know. I think this film had to have the ending it did because the damage he causes in this film is the reason why he is so mindful of how his actions affect others.

All in all, I think that Man of Steel is a great film. It deals with some interesting issues, it is beautifully shot, the score is amazing, and the cast does an excellent job of bringing the characters to life. I honestly think that people need to give this movie a second chance. The ending is not so controversial when taken within the broader context of this film being an origin story, and the film presents us with a hero who does represent an ideal for us to strive toward.

Check out CinemaWins's video about Man of Steel:

"The Dark Knight" Trilogy - A Review

This past week I had the opportunity to rewatch Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Since I have been asked to review those movies, I thought it would be a good opportunity to also offer up my thoughts on these movies.

The trilogy kicks off with Batman Begins, which does exactly what its title suggests: it presents us with Batman's origin story. This installment is very entertaining and does a very good job of setting up the characters. However, it's also pretty much your standard superhero origin movie, so while it is entertaining, it is also somewhat predictable. Despite this, the trilogy's second film, The Dark Knight, completely breaks free of standard superhero movie tropes and instead offers up a story that is both action-packed and philosophical. The story takes so many turns it avoids all chance of being predictable, giving it a certain freshness that neither of the other two films seem to have. This, in conjunction with Heath Ledger's creepy take on the Joker, elevates The Dark Knight above the other two film, making it arguably the best installment in the trilogy. Finally, The Dark Knight Rises concludes the trilogy with a script that suffers from a couple plot holes and the filmmakers trying too hard to top the previous film. However, a plot twist that is pulled off extremely well, a race against time style showdown, and genuine emotion elevates the film's third act, allowing viewers to walk away from the trilogy satisfied with the journey the trilogy took the characters on.

Despite one's opinions about the individual installments, they must all be taken together as a trilogy that tells a single story. Sure, each film has its own plot, but these plots work together in a way that puts Bruce Wayne (played by Christian Bale) on a single journey. At its core, the Dark Knight trilogy is about who Bruce Wayne is and the part that being the Batman plays in his life. With each new threat that Batman must face, Bruce faces a personal struggle within himself that constantly evolves as he goes out to confront these various threats. It is this look into Bruce's psyche that gives us an emotional investment in Bruce finding peace not just for Gotham, but for himself. The trilogy as a whole does an excellent job of telling this story and brings it to a satisfying conclusion in The Dark Knight Rises.

In addition, the trilogy is memorable because it is more than just a series of action movies. Instead, these films deal with deep philosophical issues such as human morality and societal systems. Specific examples include discussions about people's capacity to do good and whether anarchy is better than capitalism. The films' answers to these issues offer up hope that perhaps humanity is not beyond redemption. Especially in the times we live in, it is important for Christians to remember that people can be changed, and in an indirect way these films offer up a reminder of that.

However, these films are not for everybody. The dark tone, the intense violence, several frightening images, and the Joker's antics will be too much for more sensitive viewers. These viewers would do well to avoid these films. This means that I do not think that these films are appropriate for children. However, for older teens and adults who aren't too sensitive, these films are well worth watching.

Why Are Christian Films So Bad?

 Christian films are often associated with being cheesy and preachy. They aren't well received by secular audiences and even some Christians don't like them. I think that part of the problem is the expectations Christians have for Christian films. Because Christian filmmakers are trying to meet those expectations, the films suffer. To prove my point, here are some expectations that Christian filmmakers need to stop catering to if they don't want to alienate secular audiences.

The protagonist must be a believer and the antagonist must be an unbeliever
The only exception to this is if the film is about an unbeliever that becomes a believer before the film ends. This idea has led to one of the biggest criticisms that unbelievers have about Christian films, and for good reason. Meeting this expectation often causes Christian filmmakers to depict characters in an unrealistic or (in the case of the unbelieving characters) unloving manner. Yes, that's right, this is the source of the evil atheist stereotype in Christian films. Because unbelievers are almost always set up as antagonists in Christian films, they always come across as downright evil people out to silence Christians forever. However, this is not how it is in real life. There are a lot of unbelievers out there who are really nice people, they just don't believe in God. And while it's sad that they don't believe in God, that doesn't mean that they're out to get you because you believe in God. So depicting all unbelievers as really evil people on film is just wrong. Besides, there are other options for antagonists. Another believer could be the antagonist. The story could be about two Christians who are rivals for some reason. Maybe they both like the same girl or maybe they're running for office against each other. There are ways to make Christians antagonists without discrediting their Christianity. Furthermore, the hero of a Christian film can be an unbeliever who never becomes a believer in the film. Don't believe me? Look at the story of Samson in the book of Judges. An argument can be made that he was not a true believer, and yet the Bible takes the time to tell his story. Telling a story from Christian worldview about an unbeliever is not only possible, but could even make for a very interesting film. Bottom line is that the protagonist of a Christian film does not have to be a Christian and the antagonist does not have to be a non-Christian.

The film's message must be clearly stated
This is the reason Christian films often get called "preachy" or "on the nose." Because Christian filmmakers feel like they have to make their point really clear, they end up telling rather than showing their point. At this point, you might be saying, "But if Christian filmmakers don't clearly state their message, won't the movie fail to lead people to Christ?" Well, first of all, it's not the filmmaker's job to preach to the audience; that's a pastor's job. Second of all, some of the most ideologically influential films in film history did not state their point. Instead, they assumed their point when telling the story, causing them to demonstrate their point in a very natural way. Recently, I wrote an article about the X-Men film franchise and how those films have influenced the way Americans view discrimination. The X-Men movies didn't have this influence because a character explained why discrimination is bad. Instead, those films showed how discrimination is bad. Christian filmmakers need to start taking queues from movies like the X-Men movies and start being more subtle in the way they present their beliefs. If you assume your worldview when you tell a story, your audience will be forced to assume that same worldview in order to care about your characters (again, the X-Men films do this beautifully). When this happens, you can provoke change in the thinking of your audience. On the other hand, when you state your point, the people who disagree with you will immediately be alienated because they recognize that point as something they don't agree with. If Christians want their films to actually reach unbelievers, they need to stop clearly stating their point.

Christian films must be family-friendly
Now, I am not saying that it's alright for Christian filmmakers to put foul language and sexual content in their films. Doing so causes the actors to sin for the sake of other people's entertainment, which is obviously wrong. However, there are topics that Christians need to address, and many of those topics provide many story possibilities for filmmakers. Christian filmmakers should be able to tackle these stories and issues without having to water it down so that the film is appropriate for children. There are some topics that are too mature for young viewers, and when Christian filmmakers try to make films about these topics that are family-friendly, the end result is usually pretty corny. Christian filmmakers should be able to address certain topics in a way that impacts the audience, and sometimes that means releasing a movie that parents shouldn't let their kids see. And that's OK.

God and/or Jesus must be mentioned at least once in the film
I see Christians cry foul every time a Christian film doesn't mention God or Jesus once. The thing is, Christian films can glorify God without mentioning God. Just because a film calls itself a Christ honoring film doesn't mean that characters are going to talk about Jesus in the film. The Bible tells us that we honor God when we do what is pleasing to Him, and as long as a Christian film fits the standards of Philippians 4:8-9, they will honor God whether they mention Him or not. Still not convinced? Look at Jesus Himself. He told stories all the time to make his point. These stories honored God, and yet in many cases they did not make any mention of God whatsoever (see for example the parable of the Good Samaritan). If Jesus could tell stories without mentioning God, then Christian filmmakers should be granted the freedom to tell a good story that honors God without feeling pressured to mention God in their story. Now, I wholeheartedly believe that if the story legitimately calls for it, Christian filmmakers should not be afraid to talk about God in their films. However, if talking about God in their film does not contribute to the story, it's OK to not mention God at all.

These are just a few of the changes Christian filmmakers need to make in order to not alienate secular audiences, and if Christian audiences would be willing to give up these expectations, it will be a step in the right direction for the Christian film industry as a whole.

"23 Blast" - A Review

It seems like every time I think I've heard of every Christian football movie, I either discover a new one I hadn't heard of before or I find out that a Christian filmmaker is about to release another football movie. The latter scenario occurred back in 2014 when I was checking Plugged In Online for a review for some movie (I don't remember which one). While I was on that site, I noticed a review for a Christian football movie called 23 Blast that was about to begin a limited theatrical release. After reading the review, I decided that it looked like it might be good. Unfortunately, I was not able to go see it during its theatrical run, so I decided to wait for the DVD release and rent it from Netflix. Well, then the DVD came out and Netflix never got it. After a while, I decided I probably wasn't ever going to get to see 23 Blast. But then, Netflix made 23 Blast available to watch on its instant steaming service earlier this year, and so last night I finally sat down and watched 23 Blast. Was it worth the wait?

 The film is about a high school football player who goes blind and, against all odds still continues to play on the football team. I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, and trust me, I would have thought the film's story really cheesy if it hadn't been based on a true story. The movie tells the story of Travis Freeman who really did go blind, continue to play football, and then go on to become a pastor (though we only actually see those first two events in the movie). The fact that the film established that we were watching a true story from the beginning made this seemingly ridiculous story much easier to believe.

One of the things I liked about this film was that it wasn't overly preachy. The filmmakers seemed to realize that the story alone was sufficiently edifying without having to throw in corny "you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you" speeches. In fact, the only time God is even mentioned is in a dream sequence, which according to a statement during the closing credits is based on a dream that Travis Freeman actually had in high school. We still see the spiritual ups and downs that Travis went through during his blindness, but the film takes a good show-don't-tell approach. Instead of a sequence of Travis screaming at God when he gets frustrated with his blindness, he tears his cross necklace off his neck and throws it across the room. Instead of asking why this had to happen to him, we see Travis locking himself in his room for weeks. In short, this film is a great example of a Christian filmmaker understanding that you can tell a Christian story without invoking God throughout the film.

The film is also quite entertaining. The comic relief scenes don't feel forced like they often do in Christian films, the cast turn out great performances that really make us care about these characters, and the football game scenes are fun to watch. The film does a great job depicting the adjustment it takes to learn to live as a blind person, and it does so in a way that both entertains and gives us a respect for those who have lost their sight.

This is not to say that the film is without its problems. I felt that in the beginning the screenwriters were in a hurry to get to the part in the story when Travis goes blind. The beginning is rushed, and we barely have any idea who all the main characters are and how they relate to each other before Travis goes blind. Also, we learn that before he went blind, Travis had a girlfriend, but she disappears from the movie after he goes blind. The assumption is supposed to be that she dumped him after he went blind, but we don't see this happen. She just disappears from the film. This is a real shame because what little we saw of her before Travis goes blind set up what could have been an interesting subplot in the film. But it was like the screenwriters completely forgot about that storyline after Travis went blind, leaving us to wonder why she was even in the first ten minutes of the film in the first place.

Another problem I had with this film is that there are a few parts that are kind of confusing. For example, the film does a good job of capturing the lingo that football players would use when talking to each other. The problem with this is that those of us who have never been on a football team or who aren't die hard football fans have trouble following the conversations. There were a few conversations where I had no idea what was being said because of this.

So, do I recommend this film? Well, that depends. This is not the best sports movie I've ever seen, but it's still an entertaining film. I would say that if you like sports films, dramas, biopics, or some combination of these three, then you should give this film a watch. If you don't like any of those three genres, then skip this one.

NOTE: Some parts of this film may not be suitable for young children. If you would like more information about the content of this film before letting you kids watch it, then please check out Plugged In Online's review of 23 Blast here.