I know that some of you haven’t been able to get to the blog for a while.
Well, that’s because my web address subscription (www.theherospath.com) ran out and wordpress wants $125 to renew it.
So I said, “FU-WP,” and decided to get a new web address.
So without further ado…
I present…
www.thedang3rbox.com
All Darby The Dangerous, all the time. Suckaz!
This weekend I decided to go check out the new documentary-style superhero flick “Chronicle” at the local cinema. Now that I’ve seen it, I find myself trying to decide whether or not I liked it. It’s been driving me crazy. So I thought maybe I’d give you a peek into my mind and let you decide if I liked it.
Spoiler Alert: I should tell you right now that this post is a total spoiler! I totally give away the ending.
The story is about three high school boys who find a mysterious pulsating crystal underground. Of course, the crystal gives them super powers and their new secret causes them to grow close while learning how to use said powers. The crew consists of three archetypal characters: Andrew- the misunderstood, bullied, and down trodden protagonist; Matt- the philosopher, too-cool-for-school cousin of Andrew; and Steve- the popular, charming, king of high school.
First off, I’m not sure if I liked the documentary style of camera work. Some parts seemed very visually captivating, while others seemed hokey and took me out of the film. When the view of the camera changed from Andrew’s camera to Matt’s love interest, Casey’s, it seemed a bit forced. It seemed like in order to keep the camera work interesting, the filmmakers had to write in a character who was also obsessed with filming. It was an interesting idea and it took me almost the entire movie to decide if I liked it or not. I made my decision toward the end when Andrew and Matt engaged in their final battle. It seemed like there was all of this awesome epic action going on, but the audience couldn’t see it. At the beginning of the sequence (when we only had the view from Andrew’s camera) the audience mostly only saw the floor or an unintersting shot combined with loud super-destruction noises. Later (when Andrew’s camera is left behind), we get news, security, and police footage. The constant changing between camera styles, video quality, and sound quality really didn’t do it for me. I felt like I was missing out on the awesome battle.
On a side note, this is why I loved “District 9” so much. It started off as a documentary style movie, but then slowly drifted into a real movie with omniscient camera angles. Then, the documentary style was able to be used as a storytelling device to enhance the narrative and not hinder it. I feel like “District 9″ is the bar in which all documentary style movies should try to reach.
My second comment is that I really wish Chronicle had been a television series instead of a movie. I loved all of the characters and found myself very invested in them. Although, because of the character development and the time spent letting me get to know the characters, I felt like the movie was extremely boring in some parts. I am 100% for character development and I think these in particular had a lot to offer.
Third, my favorite character: Andrew. I love it when it is unclear who the protagonist is and who is the antagonist. By the end of the movie, Andrew is clearly the antagonist, but the movie is also clearly about him; about his transformation. Growing up as somewhat of a social outcast myself, I have a deep affinity with villains. The fact that the audience was able to see what Andrew saw and feel what he felt let them, sort of, get on his side. Or at least understand where he is coming from. To have that kind of background story makes a great villain. Think about it; Magneto, Lex Luthor, Darth Vader, Richard III, and the list goes on in all genres. Also, when Andrew finally snaps and calls himself the Apex Predator… what a great name for a super villain! “APEX!”
By following the story through the eyes of a bizarre anti-hero, Chronicle hearkens back to a type of movie I haven’t seen in a long time. In fact, I don’t even know what to call the style, so I’ll just give you some examples: The Wolfman, Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
All three movies feature a protagonist who, through some extraordinary circumstance, become some type of monster. The problem is, the audience still feels for the protagonist, even though they all know the monster has to die. This is Andrew to a “T.” We all love Andrew and understand that his dad is a douche, his mom needs help, and high school sucks. But once he turns into a sociopath (by ripping legs off spiders and such) and then starts to tear up the town, we know that he is a monster and cannot survive the end of the movie.
Lastly, Deus ex machina. The spear on the statue that Matt uses to kill Andrew at the end. Am I right?
Ok, so there’s my thoughts. Hopefully they will haunt you.
Darby
The internet is a funny place. It doesn’t take long for a controversial video, picture, or article to go viral. It takes less for the rebuttals and commentaries to come out.
Within the past week I have seen two pieces of media over one controversial subject being posted all over Facebook. I’ll even unashamedly admit I took part!
It started with a video created by Jefferson Bethke giving a Spoken Word Poem titled “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” Bethke uploaded the video to youtube.com on January 10th, and within 3 days the video went viral and rustled enough feathers for Kevin DeYoung, a Michigan Pastor and blogger at thegospelcoalition.org to post a critique/rebuttal titled “Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really.”
Now I’m seeing DeYoung’s article posted all over Facebook with accompanying posts saying the equivalent of “BOOYA!”
Since then, DeYoung and Bethke have been in contact with each other through e-mail and a rather heart warming follow-up article has been posted.
But, since I love theological debate and I’m getting ready to go discuss the video tonight with some friends, I’m going to throw in my 2 cents and say why I think DeYoung’s critique is really a moot point.
First off, I would like to point out that Bethke’s video is not an emergent manifesto of any kind. It’s a poem; a work of art. By its very nature it uses language aesthetically and is supposed to provoke its listener to find the deeper meaning beyond plain words. DeYoung, to his credit, does a little research, and through brief reflection, figures out what Bethke means by “religion.” DeYoung says, “Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.” (emphasis added) DeYoung admits that he then agrees with Bethke’s view… so it would seem the critique could stop there. Instead DeYoung goes on to give an argument for what he considers religion. This is just an argument over semantics.
I know some people out there would say “but Darby, words have meaning and we shouldn’t just throw them around with reckless abandon!” I agree, but remember, we’re not talking about prose but the language of poetry; a language that can be molded and shaped to its creator’s will. Also, the word “religion” itself is a vague word. Some theorists say the word comes from the Latin words re+ligare meaning to continuously re-bind one’s self to something (usually a deity). Bethke repeatedly refers to the things religious people bind themselves to like: “behavior modification,” “chores,” and being known as “a Christian by your Facebook.” It seems we would have no problem saying Jesus hates it when we bind ourselves to things like these. Although, I’m pretty sure Jesus never actually says he hates anything; he merely implies. But it’s a dangerous game to start putting words into Jesus’ mouth. Which brings me to my next point…
Some of the theology in the poem seems a little shaky, DeYoung is quick to point this out, but I think with the proper knowledge behind it, Bethke could actually make a strong case. Just for an example, Bethke says “Because when he [Jesus] was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you.” There is a strong constituency of people (of which I am one) who say that Jesus was not thinking of us while on the cross, but was only concerned with fulfilling the Father’s will. But, if God is of infinite knowledge, knowing each one of us before we were even born, then it is quite reasonable to say that he was indeed thinking of us individually. If Jesus and God are one in the same, then one could make the case that Jesus was in fact thinking of individual believers and non-believers. This line of thought raises questions about the divine nature of Jesus which has been a debate in Christianity since the 3rd and 4th centuries and also sparked some of the first Nicean Councils.
Lastly, I feel like DeYoung takes some pot shots at Bethke and his supporters by saying “This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? …Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.” Basically, young Christians don’t really know what to believe and are persuaded by pretty lights and shiny things. He even later suggests (very nicely) that Bethke take some formal theological training. I just don’t think this sentiment holds water. While the statement of confusion may be true for some young Christians, I don’t think it’s true for all and certainly not Bethke. It’s just a case of one person disagreeing over the (possibly) well founded theology of another and nitpicking at details that in some ways are not relevent to salvation.
I’ll freely admit that I am a supporter of the video, not because it is flashy and is an expression of a misguided youth, but because it is from an artist who has his fingers on the pulse of culture. It needs to be said that “Christian” doesn’t equal “Republican.” It needs to be said that just because you put “Christian” on your Facebook, it doesn’t mean you’re actually following the footsteps of Christ. And it needs to be said that any system or institution made by men is doomed to fail and that is why God searched for us instead.
“Jesus didn’t come to make us Christian. Jesus came to make us fully human.” -Hans Roomaaker
Hey friends! If you’re feeling nostalgic… here’s some good ol’ fashioned Mr. Tumnus!!!
Baby Shark
To download these songs, right click over song title, select “Save Link As,” and save to your computer! If you feel guilty downloading 7 songs for free, you can donate some change on the homepage in the upper right hand corner! Thanks for listening!!!
Darby
(SPOILER ALERT!)
Rango is the story of a domesticated chameleon who finds himself in an old-west town filled with all the colorful characters one would expect: outlaws, gun fighters, crooked mayors, bank robbers, goofy townsfolk, and spitfire cowgirls.
This movie is also chalked full of parallels to the hero’s journey! But why should anyone be surprised? After all, stories of old west protagonists are the epitome of American heroes. Also, take note that Rango’s writer, John Logan, is no stranger to the hero’s tale. With writing credits for movies like Gladiator, Star Trek: Nemesis, and The Last Samurai under his belt, it is no wonder the movie almost blatantly tells the steps of the monomyth.
The interesting thing is that the antagonist of the film says repeatedly that there is no more room for sheriffs and gunslingers in the world of progress. I would say that the underlying meaning behind this is that, in the modern world (the world in which we live), it is impossible to become a hero. I would go even farther to say the movie contains the idea that to be a true man, one must be a hero. But since the antagonist says these archetypal figures are all fading legends, the movie, therefore, suggests modernization cannot produce real men. What does it take to produce a real man and hero? The hero’s journey of course!
The opening scene shows a disillusioned character living in a fake plastic world, a lizard’s tank. His brightly colored floral shirt shows that he is a domesticated slave of fashion, his friend is a wind-up toy, and his girlfriend is a headless (mindless?) piece of plastic. While living his “perfect” life, he ponders about how a hero is made. He has the epiphany that a hero “cannot exist in a vacuum” (a fake plastic world), and must have conflict, a battle to fight. The second step of the hero’s journey is the “call to adventure,” an event that pulls the hero from his ordinary life into a world of conflict. The next thing to happen in the movie is “an ironic unexpected event that will propel the hero into conflict!”
Once this happens, the chameleon begins his journey into hero-dom and manhood. Along the way, in an old-west saloon, he is asked for his name. At this moment, he decides what character in life he wants to play. He chooses the name/persona of a ruff, tough, gunsling’n hero called Rango. Rango, like all of us stepping into the world of adventure, has to choose who he is going to be, what story he wants to tell. Eventually in the story, once all is lost, the words of wisdom that enlighten him are, “No man can walk out on his own story.” That is, to be a man/hero, one must complete the journey by walking the hero’s path.
Now that I’ve ruined most of the movie for you if you haven’t already seen it, here is something that may make it interesting again (or if you just want to watch it again). Print off the list of steps in the hero’s journey below and see if you can match the steps with the events of the movie!
1. THE ORDINARY WORLD. The hero, uneasy, uncomfortable or unaware, is introduced sympathetically so the audience can identify with the situation or dilemma. The hero is shown against a background of environment, heredity, and personal history. Some kind of polarity in the hero’s life is pulling in different directions and causing stress.
2. THE CALL TO ADVENTURE. Something shakes up the situation, either from external pressures or from something rising up from deep within, so the hero must face the beginnings of change.
3. REFUSAL OF THE CALL. The hero feels the fear of the unknown and tries to turn away from the adventure, however briefly. Alternately, another character may express the uncertainty and danger ahead.
4. MEETING WITH THE MENTOR. The hero comes across a seasoned traveler of the worlds who gives him or her training, equipment, or advice that will help on the journey. Or the hero reaches within to a source of courage and wisdom.
5. CROSSING THE THRESHOLD. At the end of Act One, the hero commits to leaving the Ordinary World and entering a new region or condition with unfamiliar rules and values.
6. TESTS, ALLIES AND ENEMIES. The hero is tested and sorts out allegiances in the Special World.
7. APPROACH. The hero and newfound allies prepare for the major challenge in the Special world.
8. THE ORDEAL. Near the middle of the story, the hero enters a central space in the Special World and confronts death or faces his or her greatest fear. Out of the moment of death comes a new life.
9. THE REWARD. The hero takes possession of the treasure won by facing death. There may be celebration, but there is also danger of losing the treasure again.
10. THE ROAD BACK. About three-fourths of the way through the story, the hero is driven to complete the adventure, leaving the Special World to be sure the treasure is brought home. Often a chase scene signals the urgency and danger of the mission.
11. THE RESURRECTION. At the climax, the hero is severely tested once more on the threshold of home. He or she is purified by a last sacrifice, another moment of death and rebirth, but on a higher and more complete level. By the hero’s action, the polarities that were in conflict at the beginning are finally resolved.
12. RETURN WITH THE ELIXIR. The hero returns home or continues the journey, bearing some element of the treasure that has the power to transform the world as the hero has been transformed.
http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero%27s_journey.htm
For those of you who do not keep up with religious calendars, you may find it interesting to know that last Thursday (6/2/2011) was Ascension Day. Ascension Day is believed to be the last day Jesus spent on earth, after the resurrection, before he ascended into heaven. Every year it is celebrated 40 days after Easter Sunday. Last year, I had the privilege to be in Jerusalem and watch some of the liturgies and processions at the Church of Ascension. Needless to say, it was a very interesting experience!
To give a little bit of history, many holy sites around the Middle East were conquered and re-conquered by various Jewish, Christian, and Islamic factions. Eventually, most of the holy sites around Jerusalem were taken over by Islam and acquired by Saladin. The Church of Ascension was turned into a mosque and created as both a Muslim and Christian holy site. Within the Ascension Edicule lies the rock believed to be the place from which Jesus ascended into Heaven. Non-Muslims can pay a fee if they want to pay homage to the area, but, during the Day of Ascension, Christians are allowed to enter in and perform their various ceremonies.
When I was visiting, there were four different Christian sects, the Armenians, Coptic, Syriac, and Greek Orthodox, all performing their rituals. Not only were the different churches there, but droves of devout Christians came to be blessed by the site. Because of the multitude of people, I noticed a few problems. The hundreds of people trying to get in and out of the walled in area could only go through one tiny door.
This meant that if you wished to move through the crowd in any sort of timely fashion, you would have to be somewhat vigorous, if not pushy. Also, because these churches can only be in the area one day a year, they all had a set schedule of what ceremony had do be done at what time. If they didn’t get it done in the allotted time, they would not be able to finish. In order to do this, they had, what I called, “goons” to go ahead of their processions and move people out of the way.
While I was there, I felt burdened. I was in the Holy Land, the place where my savior had lived and died, the place where the Holy Spirit of God was first revealed to humans. But I didn’t feel the Holy Spirit anywhere. I don’t know as much about “orthodox” churches as I should since I was raised as a protestant, so the rituals didn’t mean as much to me as I’m sure they did for others. But as I looked around, I saw men of the cloth checking their txt messages, people pushing and sliding around each other, and fez topped goons with big sticks “moving” people out of the way so the next big gaudy golden cross could be paraded around, all to pay homage to a rock, smooth to the touch from years of rubbing and kissing, that Jesus may or may not have stood on.
All I saw was selfishness. All I saw were people trying to get their blessing, and churches trying to perform their rituals and hardly anybody showed humility or patience when it came to getting through the door to see that blasted rock. In my mind, I asked God, “Where are you LORD? Why don’t I feel your presence at all? What do you think of all this?” But then, all of a sudden, I saw the face of Jesus in an old woman.
While the great swarm of people were crowded by the entrance, a few of the goons tried to push them aside for the next procession. In this instance, they happened to push aside a tiny lady hunched over and carrying a cane. The old woman standing next to her shouted out at the men, “WHAT ARE YOU DOING!!” The buzzing crowd stopped to listen to the commotion. “Why are you pushing this woman!? Jesus did not push! Can’t you see that this woman is crippled!? Jesus did not push the crippled, he healed the crippled! You are men of God, you should not push! You should act like Jesus!” At that moment, I saw Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem flipping over the tables, enraged over what humans had done with this holy site.
If we are Christians, why are we worried so much about our rituals? As I said, I was not raised in an orthodox church, but I am very familiar with the sense of “ritual.” Pray before bed at night, if you’re good you go to church on Sunday, and if you’re really good you go to church on Wednesday too. We pray the right things when asked to pray out loud, we smirk and sneer at the proper situations, and we stay on the proper side of the political fence. But what does that matter? If Jesus had come back right at that moment, what would He have wanted to see us doing? Swinging incense in the air and kissing a relic, or would He have rather seen us running a soup line for the hungry, giving vaccinations to the poor, and spending time laughing with one another in praise over what God has done? I don’t mean to sound like a jerk, or belittle the rituals that give such a strong anchor to people’s lives (because I’m sure there were great things happening there I couldn’t see), but I do know that often times, the most harsh words Jesus had to say were not to the outsiders, but to the people in His own religion. When we try so hard to focus on the right path and doing the right thing, sometimes, if we only do it for ourselves, it’s really easy to not notice the tiny crippled woman we are pushing out of the way. That fiery old gal was right. Jesus would not want that, and neither should we.
To see more pictures of Ascension Day 2010 in Jerusalem, click here!
