Christian, Native Cultures Collide in New World and Spear

Terrence Malick has made only four films in three decades: Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and now The New World. The first two have, over time, been recognized as classics. The Thin Red Line seems to be following in their footsteps, provoking thoughtful discussion among cinephiles for its lyrical cinematography and its unique contemplative style.

The New World may become a classic as well, but it's too early to say. As is the case with many masterpieces, critics are initially divided in their responses. Malick's style is so different, it is enthralling for some, boring and even annoying for others. The New World makes heavy use of the internal monologues, thoughtful questions, and poetic flourishes that dominated The Thin Red Line. Its complex, layered use of metaphor and symmetry make it a work that cannot be adequately assessed in one viewing.

Thus, it's likely to frustrate viewers who want a more traditional narrative, a lot of action, and a conventional romance. Here's a filmmaker who's as interested in the swaying trees as he is in the battles. The way he tells a love story, the audience becomes invested in one romantic relationship, only to be asked to shift gears and consider an alternative suitor two-thirds of the way through the film.

Malick's version of the myth of John Smith and Pocahontas begins with the arrival of the British on the shores of Virginia territory in 1607, and ends a decade later when Pocahontas visits London. History buffs will probably file complaints, but Malick is more interested in the power of myth than the facts, more invested in spiritual questions than historical accuracy, examining the dynamics of cultural collisions in the manner of a poet rather than a documentarian.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

Brett McCracken (Relevant) says this film begins where The Thin Red Line ended: "with a boat of weary men escaping a brutal past and hoping for a new start. Though Line is set some 335 years after World, both films evoke a vision of humanity's quest to transcend imperfect circumstance and begin anew. It is a sentiment of man's soul that has driven him since he lost Eden. How do we regain what was given us? Can we ever reach those distant shores and 'exchange this false life for a true one'?"

McCracken exhorts viewers, "Let the film wash over you like a piece of music in headphones—get immersed, open your eyes and ears and you will find The New World revelatory."

Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity) shares excerpts from his interviews with the cast, and says The New World "is of a piece with Malick's other films, which emphasize visual poetry over more conventional forms of drama or narrative. For Malick, plot and character are less important than memory and experience. Malick's dream-like visual style, and the way he holds seemingly unrelated images together through contemplative voice-overs, make for challenging viewing. But in some ways, The New World is one of his more accessible films."

Steve Beard (Thunderstruck) says, "If you are looking for a documentary on colonial life, watch the History Channel. If you are intrigued by a poetic love and loss story with all the elements of out-of-the-ordinary filmmaking, make sure to catch Terrence Malick's New World."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) feels very differently. "The New World generates only mild interest before turning into a tedious bore. It's a crushing disappointment."

Tom Neven (Plugged In) writes: "This is definitely not the Disney version. … We get no silly Indian babe in tight buckskins mooning over a buff, surfer dude-ish John Smith. Instead, director Terrence Malick has taken us to the heart of the story. He makes extensive use of voice-overs to give us the principals' thoughts, and while this is normally death to a movie, here it works because it lets us hear Pocahontas' musings (in English), which manage to be mature yet naive, and John Smith's self-doubt and conflicted loyalties."

Spear-ited reviews for movie about Ecuador missionaries

Directed by Jim Hanon, End of the Spear is a dramatization of the famous events in which American Christian missionaries were killed in the jungles of Ecuador.

Films about religious endeavors usually provoke mainstream critics to voice hysterical and negative reactions, but that is largely because movies made by Christians about Christians are often poorly crafted and preachy. The filmmakers have done their job well enough to earn some measured praise from the mainstream press. And The Wall Street Journal even published an editorial by David M. Howard Jr., the nephew of one of the murdered missionaries, which offered his perspective on the events that inspired the film.

But some, like Mark Holcomb of The Village Voice, are clearly overreacting based on their own extreme prejudice. Is there any word better than "bigotry" for his sneering and condescending reaction? "Coy crypto-Christian claptrap masquerading as feel-good ethnography, End of the Spear is part missionaries-in-peril potboiler (sans pot) and part Bush-era evangelical screed. It's the kind of oversweet cinematic Kool-Aid they used to force-feed us in Sunday school." He concludes that the movie's "Davey and Goliath dogmatism comes through as loud and clear as the sinister subtext behind its message of nonviolence—that the world's nonwhite, 'undeveloped' cultures continue to require prophylactic doses of Yank benevolence in order to survive and thrive." Ahhh, religious intolerance dressed up as film criticism.

Stephen Holden (The New York Times) takes a more disciplined, critical approach. He doesn't criticize the film's religious characters so much as he dislikes the tone of the storytelling, and the heavy-handed use of music. He calls it "inspiring enough to make you wish that the filmmakers had reined in their sentimental excesses. The humane message of the film … is undercut by the religio-mythic trappings attached to it, and by an inescapable air of Kiplingesque smugness in its portrayal of civilized whites enlightening rampaging dark-skinned savages. The overawed musical score by Ronald Owen is so obtrusive that it never lets you have a feeling of your own."

Christian critics are, of course, responding differently.

"The movie is a stirring, lush production that elevates the visual storytelling portfolio of independent Christian movies," says Lisa Ann Cockrel (Christianity Today Movies).

She continues that the film's "main weakness is the way it leaves holes in the audience's understanding of some of the characters' motivations. For example, we don't learn the reasoning behind the Waodani's murderous habits until late in the movie. And something as basic as who's related to whom within the Waodani tribe is sometimes confusing. It's likely that some of these holes in the narrative are the result of the many revisions the script went through."

But, she adds that "some of the holes are by design," and goes on to explain how the film can lead viewers to profound questions. Thus, it can serve as the first step in an important journey.

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says the director and his co-writers, Mart Green and Bill Ewing, bring "experience, talent, heart, resources and a commitment to telling the story accurately—from the Waodani point of view." He writes, "While not shying away from depicting the near-nakedness of the tribe or the violent acts they routinely engaged in, Green, Hanon and Ewing effectively relay the myriad of godly, life-changing messages contained in this gut-wrenching story. Forgiveness. Healing. Selflessness. Family. Love. Honor. Bravery. Kindness. The list goes on, yet maybe no message stands out as much as redemption."

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) says, "The movie lends itself to many compelling questions for the family, such as, 'What would our family be willing to suffer for the sake of the gospel?' … Filmmakers like Bill Ewing understand that audiences love watching true stories packed with drama, danger, intrigue, and spiritual inspiration, and End of the Spear will likely attract scores of families who want to so inspire their children to make a sacrificial impact in this life."

A saga devolves in Underworld Evolution

When you see the name Derek Jacobi on a movie poster, you can usually assume that the film is substantial. Jacobi is a veteran of high drama on the stage and the screen. Kate Beckinsale has also earned respect for her work with directors like Whit Stillman and Martin Scorsese.

But the two have stumbled into trouble with Underworld Evolution, the waste-of-a-sequel to the action-horror adventure Underworld. Even worse, the film was No. 1 at the box office, all but guaranteeing another sequel to make things worse.

In director Len Wiseman's flick, the war between vampires and werewolves is worsening. Selene (Beckinsale), that agile, fang-toothed heroine, is now being hunted by her own vampyric kin, thanks to the evil deeds of a traitor (Bill Nighy). Her only hope is to save the world with the help of her "hybrid" lover. (No, that doesn't mean he drives a Prius.)

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says it's "as appealing as a sun deck at a vampire convention," and describes it as "loud and nonsensical horror." He concludes, "Evolution fails to evolve past the original's excess, forgoing plot altogether in favor of even more video-game violence, culminating in a mind-numbing climax that gives new meaning to the term "sensory overload.'"

Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, "Forget any semi-romantic notions of Romeo and Juliet gaining gothic glory. Here you get nothing more than lightning-quick, ultra-violent, ultra-bloody, ultra-gratuitous warfare. … Add in sex scenes with nudity and sexual images that involve pain and blood, and I'm left echoing Selene after she impales yet another enemy's head, 'All that is certain is that darkness lies ahead.'"

Stylish and well-acted, Match Point is still a loser

Match Point, the latest film from the prolific Woody Allen, is receiving a great deal of applause from mainstream critics. And it is noteworthy in that Allen has made a film quite distinct from his previous works: It lacks the relentless witticisms of his comedies; it is set in London rather than New York; and it features a cast of actors from "across the pond" including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Emily Mortimer, Matthew Goode, and Brian Cox, with America represented by Scarlett Johansson.

But thematically, the film returns us to the familiar amorality of Allen's recent releases. The film begins with a monologue from the central character about how our lives are ruled by chance. What follows is a tale meant to demonstrate that point. We follow Chris (Meyers), a former tennis pro who is looking for a new adventure and willing to manipulate matters to indulge his impulses. He'll remind moviegoers of Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley, or the seducer played by John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons. We follow his devious exploits as he marries one woman (Mortimer) for money and then indulges in a reckless extramarital affair with an American actress (Johansson) out of lust. Will he pay for his sins? The film shows Chris wrestling with his conscience, and suffering some trauma as his wickedness catches up with him. But ultimately, these consequences seem fleeting and insignificant.

Allen concludes with a baffling send-off that will have viewers discussing whether or not Chris is deceiving himself, or if "the good life" really is just a matter of getting lucky.

Mainstream critics seem giddy with Allen's anarchic perspective. The New York Times' A.O. Scott writes, "The gloom of random, meaningless existence has rarely been so much fun, and Mr. Allen's bite has never been so sharp, or so deep. A movie this good is no laughing matter."

Personally, I found Match Point engaging from beginning to end. The performances in the film are praiseworthy (newcomer Matthew Good lives up to his name), and the cinematography is elegant and engaging. It's an admirably crafted picture that disturbs us because it should. But ultimately, I find Allen guilty of glamorizing the sin while he makes the path of the righteous man look boring, cold, and dissatisfying. My full review is at Looking Closer.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) compares the film to Allen's earlier works: "Match Point comes across as little more than a retread of familiar themes and narrative devices. Worse, the urgency that marked some of his earlier dramas has been replaced by a sort of complacency. There was a time, during the 1980s especially, when Allen seemed to be seriously wrestling with questions about God and the meaning of life. … Admittedly, Allen's symbolism could be pretty heavy-handed … but you at least got the feeling that these issues mattered to him. Not so much now, though."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) writes, "Although Match Point is absorbing, it is a deeply troubling portrait of how godless characters struggle, but fail, to maintain basic standards of morality, and of how sin leads to further sin. Repeated transgressions lead to a disturbing crime toward the film's conclusion, and the question of whether justice will be served remains in doubt until the final scene. The punch line may leave a sour taste for many, but so much damage has been done to the character's conscience by that point, and so many biblical truths writ large, that it's difficult not to come down in favor of the film as a picture of how continued sin leads to a hardening of the heart."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says, "Several critics have suggested this film might be the director's best since Crimes and Misdemeanors. The comparisons to that engaging film are hard to miss. But Match Point delves into darker territory." Lyon also argues with Allen's conclusions about the existence of God and the relevance of behaving ethically rather than self-centeredly. "I agree with Allen that there's no middle ground, no reason to hope that human goodness alone offers any real meaning in a world without God. Goodness without God is empty and powerless. Goodness from God is eternal and redemptive."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says the film can be read as a "a kind of loose remake of Crimes and Misdemeanors, or rather a distillation of its dark moral drama." But he concludes that "Match Point lacks precisely what is, at least arguably, the most haunting element in the earlier film: its sense of genuinely conflicted existential drama."

Greydanus says the director comes to a troubling conclusion about the moral order of the universe: "Allen doesn't just let events play out one way or the other—he pulls a reversal of expectations that is nearly Chestertonian in its paradoxical force. The very thing that could have pointed to God is turned back on itself; Allen doesn't just leave God out in the cold, but blows him a Bronx cheer. … Complacency, suffice to say, doesn't make for great or compelling art. Crimes and Misdemeanors is a messy, deeply felt masterpiece. Match Point is a neat diagram, with clean lines, photogenic leads, good acting, realistic complications, a terrific twist, and no soul."

Albert Brooks goes Looking For Comedy in the Muslim World

What happens when the U.S. government sends an American comedian to find out what makes Muslims laugh? In Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, Albert Brooks rides this inspired presence right into India and Pakistan, and discovers that cracking this comedy code is tougher than it looks. And apparently, the film may disappoint viewers with its lack of genuine laughs. Still, as a cultural experiment, it may be worth seeing.

Carolyn Arends (Christianity Today Movies) praises the concept of the movie. "While the film doesn't always live up to the potential of its premise, it gets high marks (and some good laughs) for even trying.… The cultural blindness and insensitivity that renders Brooks (the character) completely hapless is the whole point of the film, and in the end it means we learn a whole lot more about the comedian—and ourselves—than we do about India or Pakistan."

She concludes that the movie is "not for everyone. The honchos at Sony Pictures backed out of distributing the film over its politically incorrect title; some viewers will be more likely to back away because Brooks asks us to work so hard for the laughs. But those who like their humor wry and dry will be rewarded by a nuanced study of the way self-absorption—much more than language or cultural differences—can keep people disconnected, be they comedians, governments, or you and me."

Mainstream critics seem to be amused, but they're not enthusiastic.

More reviews of recent releases

March of the Penguins: Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says, "Watching March of the Penguins, we may well reflect that if all human couples did at least as well by their offspring as Emperor penguins do—if in general we left our partners and young in the lurch only in the event of unfortunate encounters with large predators, or similarly deadly circumstances—the world would be a better place. Still and all, marriage has a lot more to do with how we are different from penguins than how we are the same."

Hoodwinked: Andrew Coffin (World) says, "Hoodwinked, despite some surface similarities, is no Shrek, and that's at least part of the reason why it is one of the most delightful surprises of the new year."

Glory Road: Andrew Coffin (World) says, "Even without some cursory research into the history of the Texas Western Miners, most in the audience will sense that they're watching a truncated story that fudges the facts. Some good arguments can be made against this approach to filmmaking. But what Glory Road lacks in gritty realism, it makes up for in audience-pleasing competence. The cast is excellent (particularly team leader Derek Luke), the court play well executed, and the fundamentals of any good sports movie—discipline, hard work, and teamwork—are firmly in place."

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.