the tindog coffeehouse

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” opens this Friday, and here in the good ol’ US of A, Paramount Pictures has taken a rather unique approach to marketing the movie.  Instead of letting the usual Left-Coast critics review (and turn their blue-blooded noses up at) the movie, the studio has taken it directly to patriotic Red State America: a preview at Andrews Air Force Base, promotion on CMT, and heavy marketing in places like Kansas City and Charlotte.  Seems fitting.  After all, G.I. Joe is a “Real American Hero”, right?

Or is he?

Outside of America, the marketing is much less, well, American:

[O]verseas, where big action films often earn 60% or more of their ticket sales, rah-rah American sentiment doesn’t play well. So those references have vanished from the advertising.

European marketing, rather, focuses on action sequences set in Paris — where the Eiffel Tower collapses — Egypt and Tokyo, and emphasizes that G.I. Joe is an international team of crack operatives and not some Yankee soldier.

When it comes to selling “G.I. Joe” outside the U.S., the message is “this is not a George Bush movie — it’s an Obama world,” director Stephen Sommers said. “Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can’t be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that’s made up of the best of the best from around the world.”

So which is it?  Is G.I. Joe still “fighting for freedom wherever there’s trouble”, or is he too busy apologizing to terrorists?  I’d like to know.

Because after all, knowing is half the battle.

Previously:
Obama’s great apology
‘War on Terror’ over. Osama bin Laden approves

Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality by Donald Miller is a wonderful book.  Beautifully poetic, humorous, and deeply insightful, it is composed of a series of seemingly random essays about various topics such as love, grace, and community.  Miller’s book challenged me, as it should.  I don’t agree with him on everything, but I followed along his journey anyway, willing to listen to what God had to say to me through it.

So when I heard that they were making a movie version of the book, my curiosity was piqued.  First off, it’s not like this is a novel, but it’s not purely an autobiography either.  Secondly, it’s not structured in such a way that it would easily translate to a screenplay.  So I was excited to see the end result.

But after reading a review of the screenplay on Miller’s blog, my excitement has turned to concern:

Blue Like Jazz portrays a vivid tension between Christianity and the world. I thought it was fantastic. It was hard to swallow some the direct obligations towards Christianity – they are so true though. The times of hope and resolve allowed me to emotionally connect to the character of Don. I laughed out loud and swallowed hard at times when reading through the script. The story touched on every single issue that outsiders have with Christianity (Judgmental, Hypocritical, Antihomosexual, Sheltered, Too Political, and Proselytizing based on the research of unChristian). It’s an emotional ride that brought me to an ending that gave me much hope and confidence in (1) Being Christian (2) The story I am developing with God on a personal level and (3) Jesus.

The Evangelical viewer is going to come face to face with some tough criticisms. However, the honest Christian is going to come away feeling refreshed. The cultural elite are going to laugh at the cynicism and debate that takes place during the Reed College scenes and they will appreciate the genuine tension that Don has with God. Your Juno fans are going to love the the witty dialogue, emotional connection to each character and who they represent. They will also love the scenes dealing with rabbits, the Pope, condoms, college parties, and the journey Don is on. The dialogue comes off as very genuine, even when reading it as opposed to seeing it on screen. Homosexuals who believe in God will love the relationship between Don and Laura. Conservative Christians are going to have the hardest time with it – but it is a necessary affliction they need to feel. The postmodern crowd of Christianity is going to rave about it. Since the story is about a guy who is in college your college students will love it on so many different levels, especially, the character development of Don. I think majority of criticisms will come from your extreme conservative and your extreme liberal – However, majority of the world rides the fence.

I suppose that because I disagree with homosexuality, that puts be into the category of “conservative” Christian rather than “postmodern” Christian.  So it’s probably no surprise that the way homosexuality is apparently portrayed in the movie concerns me a great deal.  Further, the arrogance of the statement that such concern is a “necessary affliction they need to feel” leads me to believe that this is not simply about including a homosexual character in a Christian movie, but that there is an obvious agenda behind it.  That is to say that if I’m a conservative Christian, then I must be wrong, and this movie is supposed to put me in my place.  (It should be noted that in the book, Laura isn’t a homosexual.)

What message is this movie sending not only to the Christian community, but to non-Christians?  From the review it seems to be that true Christianity (the “honest” kind that is not judgmental or “antihomosexual”) is made for the majority of people who “ride the fence” between conservative and liberal.  It’s the kind that doesn’t pick sides or stand for absolutes, but loves the sinner while refusing to hate the sin.

That is not the Christianity of the Gospel, and I don’t believe that was Miller’s intent in the book.

Please understand this is not an indictment of Donald Miller or his book, only a reaction to a review of the screenplay.  I’m still curious about how the movie will turn out.  I just hope the review is way off the mark.

Update, 4/16/09:
Here’s a good interview with Donald Miller and producer Steve Taylor (who was kind enough to respond to my original blog post), discussing how they deal with the controversy surrounding their work:

Doing Daring Things for Good Reasons from MHGS VIDEO on Vimeo.

A few observations about the interview:

1. The interview was conducted at Mars Hill Graduate School in Portland, Oregon.  According to their website, MHGS is an “evangelical and progressive institution. The faculty consciously submits to the authority of Scripture and the model of a hermeneutical framework that interprets the Bible in light of its grammatical, historical, literary, and theological contexts. Relational hermeneutics is a full-bodied, soul-engaged, heart-transforming encounter that involves the subjective worldview of the interpreter as much as the process of interpretation.”  I’m certainly no theologian, but my assumption is that their views on issues like homosexuality are probably more liberal than those of conservative seminaries in the South.
2. Miller contrasts Christians in the Pacific Northwest, who he deems more “balanced” because they didn’t grow up in a religious environment, with Christians in the Southeast, who he characterizes as being more apt to get drunk and sleep with their girlfriends.  I thought this was an interesting statement, if only to demonstrate how he views conservative “red state” Christians.
3. Miller mentions supporting Barack Obama for president.  He doesn’t elaborate why, but he wouldn’t have supported him without having his reasons.  Again, this demonstrates a difference between Miller and conservative “red state” Christians.  For example, as a Christian I disagree with abortion and homosexuality, and therefore will not vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate, regardless of political party.  Miller obviously feels differently if he actively supported someone like Obama.

These observations are important to keep in mind because they show where Miller and Taylor are coming from as they produce this movie, which is to say that their point of view is probably much more liberal than that of conservative Christians like myself.  It will be interesting to see how that point of view affects the message of the movie.

Previously:
¡Viva La Revolución!
What number are you?
When we worship God
‘How Apple Plays Upon Our Insecurities’

While everyone else was seeing The Dark Knight in theaters this weekend, we opted to stay home and watch a DVD instead: Michael Collins, the 1996 biopic of the Irish revolutionary leader starring Liam Neeson.

As I was thinking about the movie later, it occurred to me that you can draw some parallels between Collins and the caped crusader.

1. Both Michael Collins and Bruce Wayne seemed to live double lives.  While Bruce Wayne was a millionaire playboy by day and a brooding superhero by night, Collins was both an elected statesman and an ideological revolutionary.  From 1919 to his death in 1922, he was both a minister in the new Irish government and military leader, leading a war for independence from Britain and then fighting a civil war in 1922.
2. Both Collins and Bruce Wayne lost parents at an early age.  Collins’ father died when he was six years old.
3. Like Batman, Collins used vigilante tactics to impose his idea of justice, training the Irish Republican Army to use guerrilla warfare tactics against the British during the Anglo-Irish War and forming a special assassination squad known as the Twelve Apostles.  From Military History Online:
   

   The 12 Apostles were very effective with their jobs and they eradicated almost all of the British Intelligence system known as the ‘G’ division in Ireland. Collins was very careful when it came to killing these ‘G’ men and he virtually paralyzed the service. He followed the movements, examined their garbage for information and had duplicate keys made to their houses. Collins thought of every move and even thought of the public’s reaction to their deaths so he would time when their murders would take place. No detail escaped this man.

4. Also like Batman, Collins’ identity remained a mystery to his enemies.  Although the British crown well knew his name, they had no idea what he looked like until he arrived in London in 1921 to help negotiate a treaty with the British.  Wikipedia states:
   

   In 1920, the British offered a bounty of £10,000 for information leading to the capture or death of Michael Collins. His fame had so transcended the IRA movement that he was nicknamed “The Big Fellow”. Irish author Frank O’Connor, who participated in the Irish Civil War, gave a different account of the nickname. He said that it began as an ironic, even scornful, reference to Collins’ efforts to be taken seriously by others, seen as bordering on self-importance.

5. Though imperfect, both Bruce Wayne and Michael Collins were patriots who ultimately strived to do what they thought was best.  Always the Irish nationalist, Collins “envisioned Ireland as a country which would be united, and have some international power, and most of all [be] a free state. He said there would be no distinction in the Irish nation [such that] ‘it will be our aim to weld our people nationally together who have, hitherto been divided into political and social and economic outlook.’ In turn, the people will have held the key to their independence, economic well being and greatness.” (Military History Online)

While it might be a stretch to compare Michael Collins too closely to a comic book superhero, there’s no question he remains a real hero to many Irish people today.

Wired has a rather scathing review of The Golden Compass, the movie based on atheist Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy of books about “killing God.”

Wired’s problems with the movie have nothing to do with the toned-down anti-Christian message of the movie but rather with the poor special effects, lack of character development, and the “Hollywood-saccharine” ending.

I have to confess that I’m rooting for this film to fail, and it’s definitely not looking good for the film financially so far. It’s one thing to create a fantasy story for kids (Harry Potter notwithstanding), but it’s quite another to be specifically “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief” (as quoted by Snopes).