AND THE NEXT WINNER IS...
And here's the next film to upset American Christians...or Republicans...no, Christians...Oh, what's the difference?
See the trailer here.
Does the star of this film affect whether or not you'll go see it? How about its message?
See the trailer here.
Does the star of this film affect whether or not you'll go see it? How about its message?
posted by Shaun Groves @ 5/11/2006
13 comments
13 Comments:
Concerning the 'star', remember the last movie he endorsed where he stood outside the theatre proselytizing and handing out pamphlets (The Day After Tomorrow). So if this bears any resemblance to that one...
Did you know it's being marketed the same way as "The Passion"? See here.
I won't be seeing it
I'll not go see it because my finances are limited and I wish to use entertainment dollars for entertainment.
Screedy films about the end of the world do not entertain me--whether they are this or "Thief In The Night."
Shaun - I can't tell if you're just kidding or what...?
Maybe I'm wrong about this, since I'm not an expert on what the "next big thing" is, but I don't even think this will be a blip on the radar screen compared to The Da Vinci Code. Unless a bunch of people get together to protest it or boycott, then the "collective public mind" might sit up and take notice.
As far as Al Gore -- hey, I was wondering what ever became of that guy. Last time I saw him he had put on a lot of weight and was wearing a scraggly beard, looking sort of crazy. Maybe he's past that phase now.
I'll give the former veep the benefit of the doubt and say that at least he seems to be a true believer in this. How accurate is the research that went into it? I don't know, do you? I would have expected at least a little more sympathy for his cause if not his medium here. I figured by now we all agreed that caring for the earth was, you know, a good thing and all. Maybe the movie is as heavy-handed as "Left Behind," again I don't know.
As for him being crazy, I'm not sure where that came from in this context. Is he prone to political hyperbole? Well... he is a politician, aren't they all so inclined? But 'crazy' for passionately believing in his cause? Wouldn't we all like to be branded such for our beliefs at times? I would think that at the very least the jury should still be out on the matter. Just a hunch here, but it seems that people's political leanings are going to color their attitude towards the issue and film. I would hope that we would treat him as we would want to be treated in this matter: wouldn't we want people to be open to find common ground with us where they can rather than oppose everything we say or do because of one or two unrelated disagreements?
Cach - Were you addressing the "crazy" thing from my comment? I didn't mean that I thought he was crazy, like insane or anything. I actually meant, that the very last time I saw some news clip of him a while back, he literally looked physically quite different (had clearly put on a lot of weight when compared to his 2000 election run), he had a scraggly beard that looked like he couldn't decide between growing a beard or shaving, and he was screaming about something, looking quite wild-eyed and unhappy. You know, like he went all John the Baptist on us or something (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I always sort of liked the guy as a person. I think he went from kinda-conservative to kinda-liberal on his politics when he went from Tennessee representative to Washington insider.
He doesn't invoke strong feelings in me one way or the other. The message of this movie is nothing revolutionary or new, and apart from issues of stewardship and accountablility to God, I'm not sure how big a part environmentalism should play in the life of Christians.
There's nothing wrong with renewable resources and taking care of the planet, but people need to realize that some people in the environmentalist movement are radical earth-worshipping pagans that think mankind is nothing but a cancer on an otherwise pristine world.
Which is really no worse than radical dollar-worshipping pagans that think corporations are almighty and environmental regulations are tools of the devil.
Hmmm, I don't see how we can give someone who claimed to be the "inventor" of the internet and the real-life inspiration for "Love Story" anything other than doubt. Of which I have much for Mr. Gore.
Well I can certainly tell all the "republicans" have commented. I imagine I will see the movie, and hopefully walk away with a sense of wanting to care more for the environment, and be a "good steward" of what God have allowed me to be responsible for. I imagine I will wonder why they "picked" Al Gore to be the celebrity, but also wonder if he had anything to do with that. And I imagine I will refuse to judge the film based on the fact that it quite possibly could be "democratic propaganda", before I take the time to earn an opinion. I'm sure there is an agenda behind this film, but wasn't there one behind 'The Passion'? I'll go see it.
b
No, Hammer, it wasn't directed at you. I just used the same word as you because that is the sentiment usually slung at him from the right. And that general perception is obviously what prompted this post. Actually, Hammer, I actually totally agree with you about his apparent post-election dalliance with both gluttony and sloth. That was just kind of sad to watch.
But Farky, that attitude is exactly what I was talking about before. Does disagreeing with someone on some things mean we have to automatically toss anything else they say in the garbage? I hope not. I would hope that we would look for whatever common ground we can share and build from there rather than automatically take a hostile position to every issue based on the speaker. And after all, the benefit of my doubt was given to Mr. Gore's sincerity about his beliefs in the matter: not about his person or even the matter itself.
I will probably rent it as it won't come my way in the rural backwoods.
Sometimes its the message, not the messenger, that is important and I am interested in the topic.
My point would be that for all I know Gore was just as sincere about his work on internet invention as he is about enviromental concerns. It's not that I disagree with him, it's that he's shown himself to be an out and out liar. Sincerity is about important is his hair color.
And to those wondering why they chose Al Gore to be featured in the movie. It's because it's his movie. He chose to make it...about himself. Apparently, he wasn't able to scare enough people going city to city.
Environmental issues generally are not embraced by the strongly Republican evangelical constituency in America - my core audience for the last 6 years. This struck me as odd even when I was a Republican for many reasons. My understanding of the purpose of a Christian life revolves around only three things: mercy showing, peace making and purity of heart. All of these are worship: response to who God is.
Peace making. Peace is shalom. Shalom is wholeness, completion. My understanding of what it means to make peace is this: we're not only to be about ending conflict, war etc, but also ALL of the bustedness of the world we live in. IF the environment is busted (and all things are since the Fall in Genesis 3) then we Christians are to be somehow involved in rectifying the situation. In doing so we're preserving and even restoring one source of God's revelation of Himself - we're saving God's face (Romans 1:19). How ironic and sad that our political divisions (part of worshipping Caesar's kingdom above Heaven's) keep us often times from uniting creation and nations and creating a state of shalom. Our bustedness keeps us from fixing the bustedness around us.
I like science. Love to learn. I'm interested in getting a better understanding of the issues raised by Gore's film. Mr. Gore has been traveling the country for some time now giving a presentation (a slide show??) on what he believes to be a "crisis" in the world's climate and environment and what he believes to be the solutions. A cinematographer made a documentary about his travels and the Presidential campaign loss's effect upon his life.
Being a-political I'm not interested in his political ventures or positions. I'm interested in whether or not his claims are true, his solutions have potential and whether or not the Church can help clean up any mess that's been made.
That's our job. We're peace makers above being Democrats and Republicans.
SG
Shaun, I agree with you about how disappointing it is that so many "Evangelical Christians/Republicans" are not environmentally sensitive. I first noticed this in a few very rabid Republican friends who, in their determination to rip apart the claims of the "environmentalist wackos" refused to recycle anything in their home even though their communities and city officials made it extremely easy and convenient for them to do so.
All I can say is, all one needs to do is spend a little time in India or Ethiopia or China or any number of other "third world" countries to see the painful and ugly effects of our plastic-bag-plastic-container/bottles-drink-can loving ways. I came back from 4 months in India in 2001 with a new-found deep commitment to recycling.
It states very clearly in Genesis that God gave Adam responsibility for the earth's well-being. He so closely tied Adam to this responsibility that Adam's sin had a direct and powerful impact on the environment. Even now "all creation groans as in the pains of childbirth." I'm convinced that part of the chaos we see today is a result of the sin of us humans; both Adam's original and our past and current. Don't ask me how that works -- I have know idea! But I have seen how the invisible spiritual world effects the visible physical one. And I don't think its only our lives that it impacts; I belive our sin impacts all creation.
I am convinced we have a responsibility as Adam's descendants to take care of this earth God created. How can we just abandon that responsibility, or think it just doesn't apply to us? How can we let our frustration with the agenda of a group of extremists keep us from fulfilling our purpose as Jesus' partners in redeeming all creation?
That said, however, I have a big problem with many of the claims made even in just the trailer of this film, not to mention the environmental movement at large. There are just as many scientists that can point to the past and say the warming we are experiencing is part of a cycle that has played out over and over throughout the history of the earth. For example, many scientists say this current wave of strong storms (ie Katrina) is part of a 30-year (or is it 50??) cycle of warming the Atlantic has gone through for centuries. They can point to various evidences, including strong storms in the last century (as in the 20th).
It bothers me a great deal when I see movies and tv programs spouting the things I saw in this trailer. It says to me that people are only looking at the present, and not doing thorough research into the past to make sure they aren't overreacting to the common cycles of nature. -- And let's not forget that just because we haven't seen this kind of thing in "recorded history" doesn't mean that it isn't common to an earth that is billions of years old. We may not have seen this kind of devastation in the last 2000 years, but that doesn't mean that it isn't part of a pattern the earth has repeated many times in its billions of years. It bothers me greatly that people use the present to drive fear into people; fear of the future.
I'd much rather be a voice of hope to the world than a voice of fear.
Post a Comment
<< Home