Monday, July 28, 2008

Movie Review: Inherit the Wind (1960)

These days, with all the seminary studying and reading to do, it is not very often that I would actually watch, much less write a review on a movie that was released in 1960. If I had the time to watch a movie, it would most likely be a newer release. Honestly, if I didn’t have to watch this movie for a History of Christianity class – and then write a review of the movie for that class - I doubt seriously that the film would have ever peaked my entertainment radar.

Nevertheless, I can say that I would recommend the 1960 Stanley Kramer film, Inherit the Wind, as an absolute must see for every Christian. It’s not that I think it is a great movie. It’s not that I think the movie has a great message. In fact, it is precisely what is wrong with the movie that makes it such a must see for Christians today. In my opinion, the movie represents absolutely everything wrong with Hollywood as it relates to their perspective of Christianity. As a Christian, it is important for us to know how we are being perceived. More importantly, it is critical that we – through our actions – do not become what non-Christians perceive us to be. If we truly behave the way this film portrays us, then we deserve every bit of the ridicule it bestows upon us.

Inherit the Wind, is a dramatic reenactment of otherwise actual events surrounding the infamous 1925 Dayton, TN Scopes Trial – otherwise known as the “Monkey Trial” - in which school teacher John T. Scopes was placed on trial for teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution. The movie is based upon a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee and significantly changes a majority of the historical facts – including character names and locale - as part of the dramatization. In the movie, John T. Scopes is replaced by the character Bertram T. Cates, portrayed by Dick York. Defense lawyer Clarence Darrow is replaced by Henry Drummond and is portrayed by Spencer Tracy. Prosecutor and statesman William Jennings Bryan is replaced by Matthew Harrison Brady and is portrayed by Fredric March. Finally, journalist H.L. Menken is replaced by E.K. Hornbeck and is portrayed by Gene Kelly. In the film, the trial takes place in the small town of Hillsborough, representing Dayton TN.

From the very first note of Give Me That Old Time Religion during the opening credits, it was intuitively obvious that Stanley Kramer intends for the movie to demonize the religious fanaticism that he believes characterized the motivations of those involved in the original prosecution of John T. Scopes, if not Christianity itself. Throughout the movie, the religious element is portrayed as overly zealous, gluttonous, bigoted, uncompassionate, and small-minded. By contrast, those who supported Bert Cates are portrayed as intelligent, compassionate, and temperate. In a word, Kramer portrays Christians in a manner that appears completely pagan while he portrays most of the non-Christians, particularly Cates and Drummond, in a manner that I would describe as patently Christian.

The movie depicts the townsfolk of Hillsborough as a blood-thirsty mob that would stop at nothing to prevent new ideas from infecting their world view. On several occasions, the lynch-mob townsfolk sang spirituals whose words had been changed to cry out for the death of both Cates and Drummond. At one point, the crowd carried a burning dummy, supposedly indicating its desire to burn the two at the stake. The local pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Brown portrayed by Claude Akins, went so far as to condemn not only Cates and Drummond to hell, but also his own daughter, who happened to be engaged to Cates. On the other side of the contest, journalist E.K. Hornbeck of the Boston Herald is equally determined to destroy the reputation of Hillsborough and expose them to the world for being the bigoted hypocrites he believes them to be. Only Cates, Drummond, and Brady’s wife Sara (portrayed by Florence Eldridge) appear to have any sense of self-containment and control.

The movie’s portrayal of the trial itself is as flamboyant and one-sided as one would expect given the pre-trial anti-religious hype established by director Stanley Kramer. The trial is supposed to be one that puts the “myth” of creation against the “enlightened truth” of evolution. Necessarily, then, Matthew Brady spouts religious intolerance as if it were the religious code of the country, doing all he can to demonize the defense. Henry Drummond, on the other hand, does everything he can to introduce “truth” and “intelligence” into the trial; but every effort is thwarted by the judge (portrayed by Harry Morgan) who, while seemingly not a part of the lynch-mob, still holds their views and inserts them into the judicial process as necessary to ensure that Cates does not receive a fair trial. Not surprisingly, when the trial ends with a jury verdict against Cates but the judge only issues a sentence of a $100 fine, the religious fanatics erupt and the scene quickly degrades into anarchistic mayhem.

The result of Inherit the Wind was to infamize what was otherwise one of the most famous and important trials of modern history. Instead of being a test-case for the separation of Church and Sate, the trial has become a symbol of religious intolerance and irrelevance. Surprisingly, despite the one-sided portrayal and liberal objectives of the movies producers, the issues covered by the Scopes Trial are incredibly important and relevant to current religious and political issues. Whereas the real trial dealt with important issues of Church and State, the movie dealt with the intolerance of religious bigotry. In stark irony, Christians today are faced with exactly the same bigotry against them coming from atheists over the issue of creation vs. evolution that Kramer portrayed as coming from Christians in Inherit the Wind. Turn about, however, is apparently not fair play. Attitudes of agnostic/atheistic “religious intolerance” and policies of separation of Church from State have made it illegal to teach creation in schools. Unfortunately, while Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union were more than willing to stand up for the freedom of free-thinking desired by those wishing to teach evolution in schools, their successors in the area of civil liberties actively oppose the religious freedom desired by those who wish to teach creation along with evolution as two, equally held theories of the origins of the species.

It is probably impossible to find this movie unless you buy it, but if you are within my circle of influence… you can borrow mine.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

GET SMART Movie Review

OK… Peter Segal’s remake of the 1970 spy comedy, Get Smart is rated PG-13 for a reason. According to the MPAA, it is rated PG-13 for “rude humor, action violence, and language.” The enhanced rating summary is there so that you know what you are getting into if you take your small kids to the movie. With that said, Get Smart is one of the best and funniest retro-remakes I’ve seen in a long while.

Most retro-remakes are either absolute spoofs (and usually star Leslie Neilson - whom I do not like as an actor whatsoever) or essentially just make fun of the 60s/70s culture (such as with Starsky and Hutch). Get Smart, however, is truly a redo that updates the storyline for today’s culture. On top of that, its really quite funny – thanks primarily to Steve Carell and Dwayne Johnson (who can be surprisingly funny). What’s more, not all of the humor is crude – most, in fact, is not.

I used to love watching the old Don Adams reruns of the Get Smart TV series, so I really enjoyed the movie remake. Steve Carell made a convincing Maxwell Smart – more so than I expected, because I don’t typically enjoy the characters that he portrays (OK, can I say that I hate the fact that I find The Office funny?). Steve Carell’s Maxwell Smart character, however, was not nearly as bumbling as Don Adams. Yes, he was ridiculous. Yes, he was a bit of a buffoon, but it just seems to me that I remember the Don Adams character always beating the bad guys purely by coincidence (or more specifically because of Agent 99). Steve Carell’s character actually did some pretty intelligent things… well, sort of… but I won’t say anymore… no spoilers, you know.

On the other hand, I thought Anne Hathaway did not make a very convincing Agent 99. I enjoyed her portrayal nonetheless. I don’t remember “99” ever being antagonistic towards Maxwell Smart; and even though she came around towards the end of the movie, I thought their conflict was way overplayed… In the series, Agent 99 would have never turned her back… wait… no spoilers… Here's an interesting factoid: I read or heard somewhere that Anne Hathaway found out that she had pink-eye when she and Steve Carell k- (oops again, no spoilers - sorry).

If you never watched the TV series – which doesn’t even come on the obscure channels anymore (but hey, there’s always YouTube) – then you probably won’t appreciate the subtle, and not so subtle, tributes the movie gives the series. I found a good number of them, including the cascading iron doors, the phone booth that drops through the floor, the shoe phone, the cone of silence, "Hymie" the robot, the red MG Midget, and of course several of Don Adams' patented comments (of which I think there should have been more). I know there are others that I don't remember, and I'm sure I missed a few.

Bottom line, I have to say I really enjoyed the movie. You really should keep in mind that it is PG-13, and before you decide to take your kids, check out this more complete analysis of the content cautions from crosswalk.com - http://www.crosswalk.com/movies/11577733/page2/ (but beware there might be a spoiler or two in there).

Otherwise, enjoy a good, entertaining movie.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Know that you know

Yesterday I had to participate in what could only be classified as a "pastorly" activity. As shephed, it happens and you must respond to it. One of the sheep needed counseling. Last Sunday, one of the sweet little old ladies in the assisted living center "congregation" where I serve as Volunteer Pastor came up to me after the service and requested a counseling appointment. This is not that big a deal. I'm not a counselor, but I can listen to her and, if necessary, share with her whatever biblical insight that the Holy Spirit brings to mind. The problem is this: Every pastor knows that he is not the most spiritually mature person in his congregation. There is always that one person (usually a sweet little old lady) whom everyone knows is so close to God that if she says "jump" - then everyone, including the pastor, jumps. This was that little old lady. So yesterday I stopped by her suite at the center for a little visit.

After the pleasantries, she says "last week, you said in your sermon that the church is full of unsaved people..."

Oh no... she's going to tell me how wrong I am and that perhaps I was too harsh or even mean-spirited... get prepared to jump.

"Yes," I replied... and I went on to clarify how my remarks were a commentary on what Jesus said in Matthew 7 and that I believed he meant that there are many in the church who believe they are saved but really are not.

"I want to make sure I really am saved," she said.

WHAT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? SURELY YOU ARE KIDDING ME? IF ANYONE IN THIS LITTLE CONGREGATION IS SAVED, IT IS YOU... OK, I didn't say that, but I was thinking it. You have to understand. Each Sunday, when I show up at Hearthstone, I always look forward to seeing this lady. The reason is simple. When I see her, I see Jesus. You know what I mean? There are just some people who so reflect the light of Jesus that it evident beyond evident. I want to be that person. I'm not. She is. So no matter how poorly my Sunday morning may have been to that point, her disposition and reflection of Christ is always such an encouragement to me that it almost always helps put me in a great frame of mind for worship. So, despite my thoughts, that is not what I said... What I did say though was this...

"What makes you think you are not saved?"

She went on to talk about her doubts and for the next 30 minutes or so we had a very interesting diatribe about "knowing that you know that you know." She shared her salvation experiences and struggles. I shared mine. She shared her doubts. I shared mine. We discussed the plan of salvation, which she knew in her head, believed in her heart, and for which she placed her faith for salvation. She told me how she shared her doubts with her kids (one of whom is a full time missionary) and how their response was "MOTHER, Don't be rediculous - you're the most saved person I know!"

DUH - That's what I said... not really... just another unspoken thought.

The reality, though, was that she didn't have peace. Her doubts were crippling her. At that point, I shared with her that there were two different types of "doubt" that enter our minds. The first (which really isn't doubt in the truest sense of the word) is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works in us to convict us of our sin and to draw us to God, convincing us of our need for salvation. The second (which really is doubt in the truest sense of the word) is a tool that Satan uses to try to defeat us and make us ineffective Christians. The first makes us think "I am a sinner and I need God." The second makes us think either "God could never accept me" (if you are not already saved) or (if you are saved) "My faith is not enough, so I'm not really saved." I was more than confident that she was experiencing the latter, but only she could come to that conclusion for herself.

The time came in the conversation for me to remind her what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

I reminded her that the evidence of our salvation is the fruit in our lives and the fact that we live lives that are obedient to Christ. So I asked her:

"If you look back on your life, would you say that (in general) it has been characterized by obedience to Christ?" It was a risky move on my part, because it was sort of sounding like I was asking her about her good works and whether she deserved salvation as a result... but I was working an angle...

She responded by giving me a short synopsis of her spiritual journey and how she believed she had been obedient and then said the following:

"Not once, though, did I ever think these things were earning me salvation. I didn't do them to be saved. I know that Jesus paid the price for my sin and that is the only way I can be saved. I did them because I wanted to serve Jesus and be obedient."

Eureka. I couldn't have said it any better myself. She didn't live a life of obedience to earn God's favor; she lived a life of obedience because she loved God. We are not saved by our actions. We do not do good works to earn God's favor. Nothing we can do can satisfy our sin debt.... BUT... when we fully place our trust in Him, he changes us inside. We develop a growing desire to serve Him more and more. We become obedient because we love Him, have made him LORD, and have submitted our will to His will.

"And that's how you know..."