Man, life is so busy these days.  I hardly have time to think.  The majority of my free time is being taken up by marathon training.  Luckily we (my wife and I) only have 7 weeks to go.  I've added some photos from the recent months.  I will also update my movies as I've seen a number since the last update.  Some were good (Saving Grace, V for Vendetta), some were not (Superman Returns)...

Yaaaaa!  The new rollout has allowed me to upload pictures.  Whew, I've been a bit busy in the weeks I couldn't upload, so there are a number of them.  Enjoy!

I pick up the old blog pen to talk about something that goes through my head from time to time.  No, the title doesn't refer to Catholics and Protestants, but rather to the two sides of a central question which are referred to as Calvinism and (more awkwardly) Arminianism.

 

All of Christianity believes together that we are broken and in need of repair.  The central question, however, that divides many churches is exactly how this gets done and who is responsible.

 

Although the name is less familiar, most of the churches in the United States subscribe to Arminianism.  Although there is more to the classical idea, for the sake of this argument, it can be boiled down to this: Free will is limited by God's sovereignty, but God sovereignly allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.  This is commonly known in Christian circles as the Doctrine of  Free Will.  We choose whether or not we want to be a Christian.

 

Calvinism, on the other hand, believes that the saving grace of God is not resistible. Those who obtain salvation do so because of the relentlessness of God's mercy. Individuals yield to grace, not finally because God found their consciences more tender or their faith more tenacious than other people. Rather, willingness, and any ability to do God's will, are evidence of God's faithfulness to save people from the power and the penalty of sin.   This is commonly known as the Doctrine of Predestination.  God chooses who becomes a Christian. The belief is less popular in the United States.

 

Both ideas have their strengths and weaknesses and on the surface seem to be mutually exclusive.  I grew up in a church that believed in Free Will, but spent four years in a Calvinist church in Virginia.  While thinking about the two ideas, I realized it may just be the perspective you take akin to looking at two sides of the same coin.  Ask yourself these questions:

 

What do I bring to the table of salvation?  The answer is myself.  It does seem intuitive that this is true.  I make the choice to accept salvation.

 

However…compared to God, how much do I bring to the table?  The answer is nothing.  God, in his power, supplies so much more to the equation that my portion is essentially zero.

 

Voila, the two doctrines reconciled.  We should learn to understand the power of each doctrine while knowing what the pitfalls are.  Arminianism gives us a sense of responsibility and spurs us to action, as poor as our actions may be.  However, the greatest sin we all suffer is Pride and Arminianism is a devious tool Pride can use.  I think the Church in our country suffers from this blight to nearly a terminal degree.  Calvinism on the other hand, frees us of this vice.  We cannot be prideful, because we understand we had nothing to do with our salvation.  The risk of Calvinism is complacency.  If we feel God is responsible for everything, our laziness tells us we need not try.  I don’t think this is nearly as lethal as Pride, but it still is quite serious.

 

I leave you with a few of the words to a song called  “Thankful” by Cademon’s Call.  Normally I find most modern Christian music inane.  The worship songs we sing in church these days appear to either assume we aren’t smart enough to understand multisyllabic words or were written on the back of a napkin in 15 minutes at a Starbucks.  Today I decided the proper moniker for such songs is “Dr. Seuss Worship”.  Unfortunately my church has a bad case of this.

 

Anyway, I digress, the words:

 

'Cause we're all stillborn and dead in our transgressions
We're shackled up to the sin we hold so dear
So what part can I play in the work of redemption
I can't refuse, I cannot add a thing

'Cause I am just like Lazarus and I can hear your voice
I stand and rub my eyes and walk to You
Because I have no choice

Perhaps you can catch a glimpse of the freedom and joy such belief leads to.  I’ll leave the reader to ponder.

Sorry I haven't been able to update pictures in a while.  I updated to Internet Explorer 7.0 Beta 2 and, lo and behold, MSN Spaces is not compatible.  That seems to drip with irony.  Anyway, I can't upload new pictures until someone gets something figured out.

Some time in the early morning we passed 175,000 page views for this blog.  Thanks to everybody who has stopped by.  Hope you found something to enjoy or think about!

Good Night, and Good Luck: 8 (of 10)

 

I went back and forth about the rating for this one.  Taking its name from the trademark closing Edward R Murrow used on his news show, we are shown what appears to be a fairly factual account of how his willingness to stand and point out wrong helped to end the McCarthy era of fear.  Shot in a rich black and white and using a large amount of actual news footage from the hearings, we are given a story which is quite appropriate to the day.  The movie, however, falls short of really telling us what Edward is all about.  Like watching him on TV, we only see a facade and don't get a real look into his character.  The only characters we get to see outside work are part of a sidestory which seems random and pasted into the script.

 

That being said, the movie is still a great watch.  I was waffling between a 7 and an 8 for it and I guess the Oscar nomination probably swayed me.

Here's a quick guide to what various ratings mean to me when I rate a movie.  It's important to realize that I have a very steep curve; even a rating of 5 qualifies as a watchable film.

 

10 - I reserve this for very few movies.  I've been doing this rating thing for about five years now and I think there have been fewer than five movies qualifying as a 10.  A film which resoundingly excels at story, character development, and cinematography.

 

9 - A film with very few problems yet doesn't quite soar enough to garner a 10.  Perhaps I felt the movie was slightly long or didn't like a particular scene.  Nines are also few and far between.  Both nine and ten films leave you thinking about the story long after you have watched it.

 

8 - A very good film.  Does well at the three basics of film (story, character development and cinematography).  May have editing issues (too long) or isolated problems with certain characters.

 

7 - A very solid film.  Seven is the start of what I consider to be a pretty good film.  May have done well in two of the three basics of film.  An example would be a very good action film which had an intriguing story, great cinematography and effects, but was typically light on character development.

 

6 - A good film.  Films which rate a six have flashes of brilliance, but fail to carry through completely.  Good "popcorn" films often rate a 6.  Character development is often neglected or left to just one core character.  The story may have holes in it representing lazy writing.

 

5 - A watchable film.  This is my minimal rating for what I would consider a recommended movie.  May neglect two of the three basics of film but show brilliance in the remaining feature.  Action/sci-fi films which are incredible in their CG effects but rely too heavily on them would likely get a five.

 

4 - A film which mainly fails.  The biggest culprit is usually lazy writing.  Dialogue is left to one liners and what is only necessary to advance the plot.  The story is completely predictable outside of perhaps the ubiquitous "twist ending".  If there is a twist, it is completely unforseeable and makes little sense in the story other than to mix things up.  Character development is minimal.

 

3 - I'm pretty disappointed I saw it.  We're getting down there now.  I tend to be picky with which films I watch so I tend to have few films I rate at 3 or below.  The film has some flaw which I cannot get past.  Doesn't engage me at all.

 

2 or less - I turn these off.  Why do we feel we need to finish a movie when it is clearly so poor?

Cinderella  Man: 9 (of 10)

 

I'm starting to gather my list of movies for the Top 10 of 2005.  I was finally able to see Cinderella Man after it sat as a "long wait" for nearly ever on my Netflix queue.  I'm glad I did.  Based on the true story of James J Braddock, a boxer of the depression era, Cinderella man carries its own heavyweight talent.  It is directed by Ron Howard, score by Thomas Newman, and acted by Russel Crowe, Rene Zellwiger, and Paul Giamatti.  Giamatti's skill is especially needed to counter Crowe's own skill in disappearing into his character.  (As an aside, Paul Giamatti is perhaps one of the best of the current batch of actors out there.  Had he been blessed with the hollywood Adonis look, he would be as large a draw as anybody.)

 

The movie works because a) it's a true story; were this fiction, we wouldn't believe it, and b) although you "know" the ending, you don't feel like you do.  I was riveted and transfixed with excitement during the final match.  That takes skill to pull off.

 

To summarize, I cannot recommend this film enough.  You will not be disappointed.

I’m flying back from a quick trip to San Francisco.  What a great city BTW!  I wish I could have had time to take some photographs, but a) I didn’t have any and b) I have given up photography for Lent (more on that some other time).  I’ve been pondering things here in my seat while the five year old girl in front of me is literally leaning over her seat trying to read what I’m writing.

 

We live in a bootstrap society.  How many movies have the general theme of Average Joe being shoved down by The Man only to dig deep, try harder, and succeed?  Our faith in this country seems to be much the same.  We come closer to God by trying harder.  This may not make sense for the typical reader who isn’t even sure what their faith means to them (maybe this is your chance to understand “those people”), but among too many churches I’ve attended, the great pious question is always, “How’re your quiet times coming?” (said with a concerned expression).  While I believe that meditation can lead one closer to God, I’m about to turn that question on its head.

 

Here’s where Moby comes in.  During the flight I had “Lift Me Up” playing in my ears, and playing rather loudly.  The chorus chants (not surprisingly)

 

Lift me up

Lift me up

Higher now up now

Lift me up

Lift me up

Higher now up now

 

I’m sure Moby wasn’t talking about God during the song.  However, I’m about to hijack his song.  I have attended both branches of our Protestant Faith.  Here is where I think the reformed tradition of Calvin has an advantage.  Our meditation should not be carried out with a perspiring brow reflecting our effort.  We do not possess the strength to come closer to God.  We do not possess the intelligence.  We do not even posses the desire except in a superficial way.  We try and we fail; and when we fail, we give up.  Instead, our meditation should be one of letting go and letting God “lift us up”.  We gain access to Him by Him.  What does this practically mean?  I’ll leave that to you.  I know it involves gratitude.  I know it involves humility.  I know it involves Joy and I know it involves basking in Grace.  I know it doesn’t involve “trying harder”.

 

We are beginning our descent so I’ll end with this.  For those who haven’t visited here much (and BTW we are closing in on 175,000!!! views), I don’t usually post only to the Christian portion of my audience.  But sometimes my thoughts lead that way and I tend to just write where my thoughts take me.  My next post will include everybody else.  I’ve already titled it:

 

 San Fran, Limo Drivers, Islam, and understanding Suicide Bombers.

 

Stay tuned…

Rabbit Proof Fence:  7 (of 10)

  A compelling story about Australia in the 1930s.  I originally thought this was going to be a morality tale about the woes white people have foisted upon others.  While I do carry a large burden of collective guilt about Western Civilation's record, I'm never sure about movies which portray such actions.  They can easily cross the line and become heavy handed in their moral judgement.

  Rabbit Proof Fence actually does a fairly decent job of showing us glimpses of the mind and time where having a "protector" of Aboriginal people with absolute powers makes sense.  But the movie quickly zooms in and focuses on three girls who escape their forced relocation to a girls school.  They then set out on the 2000 kilometer journey back home by foot across interior Australia.

  Did I mention the girls were 14, 12, and 8?

  Did I mention this is a true story?

 'Nuff said.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room: 8 (of 10)

 

We are seeing more Enron news these days as the trial goes on trying to convict Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay of misleading investors and employees.  If you want to actually understand what is going on, and be fascinated at the same time, I recommend this documentary.  It seems like it would be a dry subject, but it isn't.  It was mesmerizing.  My wife also enjoyed it and she doesn't have the same tolerance for such things as I do.  Not only does it allow you to read a current news article and understand what they are  talking about, it is an incredible look into human nature and the dark side of big business.

 

On another note, I will be trying to post more often in the next month or so.  I appreciate people still coming by to see my pictures, but the posts have been infrequent.  We'll see if we can renew that and I may even post a philosophical piece or two.  I've been mulling some stuff over and it's always nice to get it into words.

Born into Brothels: 8 (of 10)

  Winner of the Academy Award in 2005 for Best Documentary, this movie nearly has it all.  In it, we meet a woman interested in exploring life in the slum brothels of Calcutta, India.  She quickly finds out that cameras are not welcome in this area, but finds a way around this by giving cameras to the children of the prostitutes.  We then get to experience this life in a unique way; through the eyes of a child.  This has an unintended consequence for Zana; she begins to care deeply about the children and wants to rescue them from their environement.  The filmmakers now find themselves part of the story instead of merely documenting it.

 

  This film leaves you with stuff to ponder long after the credits roll, an excellent quality.  Also, for me, being about photography is a natural bonus.  I highly recommend this film to people interested in how much of the rest of the world lives.  But be prepared, while the poverty doesn't smother us like a millstone on our chest, you will never look at your own house quite the same way.  Some films change lives; this one has such possibilities.

L'Auberge Espagnol (The Spanish Aparntment): 8 (of 10)

  An incredibly fun film.  Think Friends, but without a laugh track, without incessant one liners, and the Friends all come from different countries.  Ok, don't think about Friends a t all.  This is way better.  Shot so well that you easily forget you are watching a movie.  The plot becomes a series of events which happen during our main character's one year stay as an exchange student in Spain (he's French).  The end contains one of the biggest laughs I've had in a while.

 

City of God: 8 (of 10)

  Also an incredible film, but comes with a warning of ultraviolence.  Think Boyz in the Hood except in Portuguese.  It follows a series of "stories" which occur and tie together in a slum called the City of God.  The most gripping part is the end where we learn it's a true story.

 

 

I've entered my first non-DPC photo contest. It's a fundraiser for a local education program. You were allowed to enter 10 photos from 2005 and 100 semifinalists were chosen. I had 5 of my 10 picked. (yaaa!)

The voting now moves to internet voting where people pick their 10 favorites. I'm not too fond of this open style as campaigning seems to be a requisite (and is encouraged). Anyway, drop by and pick your 10 favorite. I'll put the link below as well as my 5 entries (if you happen to be so inclined....)

Click here then select Top 100 at the top.



I
Remember to vote for 10 entries.

The Machinist: 7 (of 10)

 

The Machinist is a psychological thriller about Trevor Reznik, a machinist in a factory, who hasn't slept in a year.  We don't know the reason for his insomnia, and get the feeling he doesn't either.  As the film progresses, Trevor seems to decend into the madness that a year without sleep could only bring...or does he?

 

The main role is acted by Christian Bale (Batman Begins) who lost 60 pounds for the part.  He looks like skin and bones and the director uses this to full effect.  It's almost uncomfortable to see him without a shirt.  He does an excellent job of conveying the feeling of wanting to sleep badly, but just not being able to do it.  The story proceeds at a decent clip and definitely has moments of suspense.

 

I managed to guess how it was going to turn out about 20 minutes before the end, but that didn't detract too much.  The movie has a feel like Memento, but doesn't use the backwards in time device.  My brother feels Christian Bale is one of the best 30-something male actors we have currently, and I can't disagree.  I think Ed Norton has the edge, but Bale has done well in both films I've watched.

 

I recommend checking it out...

 My wife and I got to drop the kids at a neighbor's and go see King Kong in an old fashioned single screen theater (but with state of the art sound) nearby.  I loved it.  Peter Jackson, best known for his masterful direction of Lord of the Rings has proven it was not a fluke (although keeping up the direction over 3 films could hardly be thought a fluke).  Kong is what movies are supposed to be.  The CG is breathtaking and the action sequences leave you at the edge of your seat.  (I remember actually thinking, "holy cow, NOW how are they going to get out of this?")  But, and this is where most hollywood movies fail, Kong also provides story, characters and depth.

 

Yes, it is long.  Yes, it is likely too long.  However, I was willing to give up this extra baggage in exchange for making the characters seem more real.  Jack Black plays and excellent Carl Denham, and Naomi Watts plays a decent heroine.  But the main character is, of course, Kong.  The CG is as wonderfully detailed as with Gollum (with motion capture provided by the same actor Andy Serkis).  Here is no stop-motion clay model!

 

The best scene is not one of action, but one of touching emotion.  You'll know it when you see it, but if you need a hint, it involves ice.

 

By all means, catch this one in the theater when you can.  Likely to make the Top 10 movies of the year...

 

 

Lagaan: 10 (of 10)

 

I'm sorry it has been so incredibly long since I have posted.  I have tried to keep up with pictures and my Last 5 Movies seen list, but life has gotten in the way of blogging.

 

I could not, however, not write about this movie.  Who would have thought that a nearly four hour Indian film about cricket ranks among the best sports films I have ever seen.  I will give no details of the movie so as not to ruin anything, but if you can read subtitles and don't mind a few musical scenes (ala Bollywood), or a long film, I can almost guarantee you will enjoy this film.  Easily the best movie I have seen in a while.

Red Beard: 6 (of 10)

 

This is a film by Akira Kurasawa who is probably the best known Japanese director in the history of film.  He is likely to be listed among the best directors of all time among any nationality.  The movie is a long, slow look at Noboru, a newly trained doctor who was being groomed to be a physician to the Shogun, but somehow has wound up in a public clinic for the poor.  It is both a good look at what physicians go through in the beginning of their careers (how they deal with death or the helplessness felt by healers sometimes), and at the plight of the destitute.

 

The movie is 3 hours long, which is almost beyond my ability to watch these days.  I had to do it in chunks.  I'd say it's length keeps it from a higher rating.  The ending does pick up a bit as things come together in a few of the most touching scenes the movie holds.

 

If you liked a previous pick of mine The Twilight Samurai, you will probably like this.  They both run at the same pace and are exquisitely interested in character development over plot advancement.  If you are spoonfed on Hollywood action tripe, well, stay away.

I came across this quote in a thread about someone's unfortunate encouter involving their laptop and customs officials...

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Primer: 7 (of 10)

 

What can $7,000 get you?  Apparently, a fairly well written story about time travel.  This ultra-low budget film was written, directed, acted, produced, scored and probably catered by Shane Carruth.  I will give two warnings.  First, you need to have taken at least AP Physics to be able to at least understand the words being spoken during moments of techno-babble.  Second, the film was made for $7,000.  If someone comes between the camera and the person speaking, I don't think they had the budget to reshoot.  There are a lot of "rookie" mistakes, but they are overlooked because you are interested in the story.

 

We follow two garage inventors who stumble across a machine possibly capable of time travel.  From there we are wisked off into a simple, yet interesting, "what if" scenario.  I will say the ending was a bit on the confusing side, but I bet I could have worked it out with a repeat viewing.

 

For those who want to see something totally below the radar and aren't afraid of multisyllabic words, you just might want to check this one out.