"Inception" - A Review

What is reality? It is difficult to answer this question when you have been trained to create alternate realities inside your dreams. For Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), dreams are his livelihood. He and his partner, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are skilled thieves who enter into people's dreams to steal valuable information from them. It's very complicated, and Inception does a better job of explaining it then I can. However, it is also possible to lose touch with reality in these dream worlds, as is illustrated by Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). As a result, Cobb and Arthur have created items which they call totems that they use to tell them if they are awake or asleep. Despite this, Cobb feels himself losing touch with reality - as is evidenced by his constantly checking his totem to make sure he is awake. All he wants is to be able to go home to his family, but he can't because he has been implicated in the murder of his wife. That is until the head of a large corporation named Saito (Ken Watanabe) promises to help Cobb return to his family if he will help him in a very specific mission. This mission is to destroy Saito's competition by placing the idea into the head of Robert Fisher (Cillian Murphy) that he should break up his deceased father's company. Cobb accepts, and the ultimate heist begins.

This film is indeed a heist film, though it is unlike any other heist film ever made. This is something that Christian viewers must consider with regards to this film. At the end of the day, this is a movie about a group of thieves trying to take down a corporation. Granted, Cobb is doing this because it will allow him to see his family again, but the others are just there for the money. This goes back to something that was discussed in my post about Suicide Squad in which it was observed that because Christians are supposed to think upon whatever is true, it is unwise to watch a film that will cause them to route for characters who are doing something wrong.

In addition to this, the film's overall theme is problematic. Director Christopher Nolan has stated that the point of the film is that what is real doesn't matter. What matters is that you are happy. This philosophy goes against Scripture because it denies that there is an absolute truth. It implies that truth is what you make it out to be. Truth is whatever makes you happy. However, Scripture declares that there is an absolute truth and that we must live in accordance with the absolutes that are set forth in Scripture regardless of whether or not it makes us happy.

This is not say that the film doesn't have its good points. The film does uphold the sanctity of life and it also values the family. Technically, the film is well made. The pacing leaves the viewer in suspense, and the visuals are stunning - especially since most of it was done in-camera. The acting is phenomenal, and the cast has a very organic chemistry. However, none of this excuses the film's ideological problems.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked this movie. It was very entertaining and I enjoyed every minute of it. However, I am torn over whether or not to recommend this film. On the one hand, the film is a great piece of cinema and it would be a shame to recommend skipping this one. However, on principle, I am not sure I can recommend a film with so many ideological problems. My advice on this one would be to do your research and be discerning with this film. It is a good film that can serve as a good conversation starter. However, those who chose to watch this should be careful to not allow this film to not influence their thinking about ethics.

For more information about the content of Inception, check out Plugged In Online's review here.

The Ethics of "Ender's Game"

WARNING: This post contains spoilers for the movie Ender's Game.

Last week, I posted a review for the 2013 film adaptation of Ender's Game. After that post went live, I was asked to do a post discussing the ending of the film and what it says about ethics. Since this is a subject that I have spent some time thinking about, I thought I would write a short post that briefly shared my thoughts on the subject.

In the climax of Ender's Game, Ender and his fellow cadets take part in a simulated battle with the Formics, the alien race that attacked Earth years ago. At the end of the battle, they use a super weapon to wipe out the Formics' homeworld, thereby killing all of the alien queens controlling the alien soldiers. This is something Ender wouldn't do in real life, but in since this is a test in a simulated battle, he is willing to take this kind of action to pass the test.

Except it's not a test. Ender and his comrades were giving unknowingly giving orders to real human spaceships attacking the Formics' homeworld. Ender really did give the order to wipe out the Formics. Ender is furious that he was lied to and that he had been tricked into committing genocide. Colonel Graff tells him it doesn't matter because Earth is safe. The humans won. "No," Ender replies. "How we win matters."

This scene illustrates two different approaches to ethics. Graff represents the approach that says that ends justify the means. This is why he indicates over and over throughout the film that how the humans win doesn't matter so long as they win. This philosophy says that you can take whatever action necessary to complete your goal so long as that goal is something good. On the other hand, Ender represents an approach to ethics that says there is an objective right and wrong. This approach says that we must do what is objectively right when pursuing our goals, even when it isn't necessarily the easiest solution. This is the view of ethics taught in Scripture. We are to do what God tells us is right regardless of our circumstances.

That being said, there is still the problem of how the scenario at the end of Ender's Game should have been handled. How far should those in authority be willing to go in order to ensure the safety of their people? If a group poses a potential threat, what should be done about that threat? Is it ethical to enact a preemptive strike to eliminate the threat, or is it better to wait for an attack and then retaliate? I would like to posit that such ultimatums are irrelevant. This is because these ultimatums assume that all potential threats are in fact threats. As Ender points out, the Formics had made no action against Earth in years, even though they clearly could have tried. Labeling the Formics as a threat because they could potentially try to invade again is like saying that a dog with a history of biting people is going to bite you because it has the ability to.

However, this does not mean that we should ignore all potential threats either. Potential threats can still become threats. So what is the answer? Let's go back to the dog analogy. Obviously, the dog has a history of biting people, so it could theoretically decide to bite you too. However, it may also choose to continue to lie in the corner of the room. Are you going to get a gun and shoot it before it has a chance to bite you? Of course not. The dog is not at that moment a threatening presence. But are you going to wait for it to bite you and then kill it? You could, but why would you want to let it bite you? Ideally, it would be great to not get bitten by the dog at all. So what do you do? You keep an eye on the dog and be at the ready to defend yourself should the dog suddenly decide to attack you. This sounds a lot like the second option, but it is different. The second option waits for an attack to occur before a counterattack is made. This third option sees the attack coming so that the attack can be stopped before it does any harm.

Coming back to Ender's Game, it is clear that genocide was the wrong solution. Since the Formics had not attacked in years, it is theoretically possible that Graff tricked Ender into killing an entire race for no reason. Perhaps they never were in danger of a second Formic attack. This of course does not mean that it is impossible for a second attack to occur. But the Earth's leaders don't have to sit on their hands and wait for a second attack before taking action. They can monitor the Formics and prepare defenses to keep Earth safe should a second invasion come. In Ender's Game, the Earth's leaders do not take this course of action, and instead they cause a boy to do something that will haunt him for the rest of his life all in the name of security. It is those kinds of decisions that the film frowns upon, and Christian viewers should frown with it.

Don't miss this week's installment in my weekly movie review series. The review will be for Inception, and it will go live tomorrow (Tuesday).

"Ender's Game" - A Review

If you were in a position of power and an alien race was posing a threat to humanity's existence, how far would you be willing to go in order to ensure the survival of the human race? This incredibly hypothetical scenario forms the thematic basis for the 2013 adaptation of Orson Scott Card's novel Ender's Game. Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) has been given the responsibility to build a team that will keep humanity safe from aliens known as the Formics who attacked Earth years ago. While overseeing the training of cadets who are barely even teenagers, one of the boys stands out amongst the others: Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield). Seeing in Ender a potential savior for humanity, Graff will stop at nothing to ensure that Ender receives the respect (or fear, if necessary) of his peers so that Ender can lead Earth in the battle against the Formics.

Graff's methods are quite unorthodox and at times morally ambiguous. Major Gwen Anderson (Viola Davis) does her best to rein him in, but he will not let anyone deter him. "When it's over what will be left of the boy?" Anderson asks Graff of Ender. "What does it matter if there isn't anything left?" Graff responds.

In contrast, there is Ender, who does his best to do the right thing. Ender dreads that he will become like his violent brother, and so he endeavors to balance the fighter in him with compassion. Ultimately, Ender is the film's moral compass, and this creates tension between him and Graff. Their relationship (and the competing ethical approaches the film presents) are summed up in an exchange between these two characters where Graff tells Ender that all that matters is winning. "No," Ender replies. "It matters how we win."

Here is the crux of the film. It explores two very different ethical approaches. Graff represents the belief that our actions do not matter if the end result is for the greater good. Ender, on the other hand, gives us a representation of the belief that there are absolutes and that we should do what is right even when it is not the easiest course of action. The film depicts Ender as the one who is in the right, and in this respect he ends up becoming something of a role model.

However, some of Ender's actions on his journey to becoming a role model are not so worthy of praise. He stops a boy from insulting someone else by insulting the boy back. He brutally beats up a bully who attacks him, and accidentally kills another bully. Ender may be a hero, but he is a flawed hero.

With all of that said, this is an excellent film. The cast give emotional performances, especially young Butterfield. The visual effects are stunning, and the storytelling is well done. I have not read the novel that this film is based on, but I have read that a lot of people who have read the book hate this movie because it is unfaithful to the source material. This is unfortunate, since it adds this movie to the ever-growing list of good films that are considered to be terrible because it wasn't faithful to the source material. It is still a great film, however, and I think it is unfortunate that time will probably forget it due to the backlash from the book's fans. At any rate, if you have read the book and haven't seen this, you probably shouldn't see this unless you're willing to treat it as a film that is completely separate from the book. A film inspired by the book, if you will. For everyone else, go watch this. It's a great film despite being a bad adaptation, and so it is very entertaining for someone who has never read the book.

NOTE TO PARENTS: Despite the good qualities of this film, it is not necessarily a family-friendly film. If you would like to know about the content of this film in order to decide on the appropriateness of the film for your children, please check out Plugged In Online's excellent review of the film here.