Breaking the Fourth Wall

 

            In film-making, there is a concept called breaking the fourth wall in which one or several characters acknowledge the existence of the viewing audience and address the viewers as if they are participants in the ongoing events.

            The first, second, and third walls are like a box around a stage set: the back wall and the two side walls. The fourth wall is the wall visible to the characters in the play but totally transparent to the people watching the events as they occur. Traditionally, the actors and narrators are assumed to be unaware that they are being watched by the audience.

            Breaking the fourth wall occurs when a character in the play or film glances at the audience or camera, makes movements like a wink or a knowing smile which betray a knowledge of the existence of the audience, or actually speaks directly to the viewers. Occasionally, the narrative itself becomes self-aware. Examples of this phenomenon occur in the films, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, the Marvel Deadpool films, and The Neverending Story, which can be seen to exhibit as many as seven levels of fourth wall breaking.  

            What does this have to do with this Christian blog? Well, this is in reference to the Bible itself. The Bible is holy, but as an object it is just a book, ink on sheets of paper, or, in our current modern days, the arrangement of millions of pixels on your cellphone screen.

            There are widely varying levels of reverence for the physical book itself, with some actually bordering on idolatry, but the physical book is just that, a book.

            Two ways of understanding the Bible are as a tool or as a weapon. Both understandings can be biblically supported.

            So, back to the subject of this post. Sitting on a shelf or lying on a desk the Bible is just a book. The thing which only Christians can understand is that once it is picked up and opened, the Bible is itself indwelled by the Holy Spirit, the same person who inhabits each of us. Just as we can use the Bible, so can he. It is one of the many ways he can speak directly to us.

            The Holy Spirit is aware as we read the biblical text and he guides us to new insights, the meat of the gospel, new levels of understanding which we as believers can gradually comprehend as we mature. How do we know this? The Bible tells us so.

            One of the activities of the Holy Spirit is the Reminding Ministry. He will guide you in the Bible to the answers or understandings which you need to further mature as a Christian.

            Isaiah 11:2; 1 Corinthians 2:12, 3:1-4, 6:19-20; Hebrews 5:12-13; John 14:17,26, 16:13; Romans 8:9; Colossians 1:27; 1 John 4:15.

Follow the Finger

 

Apologetics, derived from the Greek word, ἀπολογία, translated in English as "defense," consists of logical arguments and the presentation of provable facts which are intended to explain or justify religious doctrines and is aimed at defusing objections to the faith. This occurs in every religious tradition but, for our purposes, refers to Christian Apologetics.
            

It is difficult to understand how people can ignore or entirely discount some of the facts brought to light by Christian Apologetics, but some always do, sometimes vehemently. Some will insist that apologeticists are misinterpreting facts or taking them out of their proper context. Others outright reject any supernatural interpretations of any facts.

One can easily get bogged down in all the arguments, but I believe that the point of apologetics can be summed up by a line from the Jean-Pierre Jeunet film masterpiece, Amelie: “When the finger’s pointing at the sky, only a fool looks at the finger.” 

            Amelie is a quirky, but beautiful, French-language comedy and is not a Christian film. I, admittedly, am quoting the film totally out of context. The quote is a perfect fit for the point I am making in this post.

Film Comment: Doctor Strange (2017)

Doctor Strange (2017), seen merely as film, is very enjoyable and technically well made. It is equally funny, frightening, visually amazing, and thought provoking. The acting is top-level and the music perfectly fits the film.

The story is based on the comic book character created by writer Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko in     1963.  Doctor Strange is a brilliant but hideously arrogant neurosurgeon.  He is a totally unlikable man, and is verbally and emotionally abusive of everyone around him, even the fellow doctor who considers herself to be his girlfriend.  As an atheist, he derisively rejects any mention of God or the supernatural. Then, his smug life is totally shattered as his talented hands are mangled in an especially violent automobile crash.    

Stephen’s entire self-worth has been built around what he considers to be his obvious superiority to those around him. He cannot accept that his prior life is gone. He desperately spends his entire fortune on increasingly experimental and questionable medical procedures. He is still broken with no improvement in sight.

Eventually his search leads him to Kathmandu and a secretive school led by a mystic known as The Ancient One. She claims to be thousands of years old. The Ancient One opens Strange’s eyes to the unseen world surrounding him.

This is an origin story and Stephen eventually becomes a Master Sorcerer charged with protecting the world from supernatural threats from powerful otherworldly beings. He has become a full-fledged hero even though he still carries just a touch of his former arrogance.

Doctor Strange is directed by Scott Derrickson, a publicly self-acknowledged Christian, and, while the film is about personal redemption, it is not a Christian film. There is no mention of Jesus at all.

Christians are commanded to stay away from magic and the occult. Magic is essentially the quest to use knowledge of spells, objects, and rituals to cause the universe (read spirits, demons, Satan, and God) to react in specific ways. This is the way in which Stephen Strange becomes a sorcerer. He is merely a man who learns how to manipulate space and time and how to leave his physical body to move about as his spirit self.

The primary sin is to place oneself in the place of God. This is essentially what magic does, harnessing supernatural beings and forces to impose one’s will upon the universe. It has no place in true Christianity.

Some commenters have said that director Scott Derrickson has used Doctor Strange’s eastern mystical roots to hint at a deeply Christian perspective on reality.  For example, the Ancient One teaches Strange that what we see around us is only a small part of reality. Paul says the same thing in the sixth chapter of Ephesians. Some commenters are much more troubled by the film’s roots and some denounce it.

In the film, The Ancient One is discovered to be a hypocrite in that, while fighting for Good, she is drawing much of her power and longevity from The Dark Dimension which is ruled by the utterly evil being known as Dormammu. Since she is their teacher, it must be assumed that the Ancient One’s students, including Stephen Strange, are also drawing power from the Dark Dimension. Surely he understands this once the revelation has been made and yet, he still uses the power.

Strange cannot possibly defeat a being as immensely powerful as Dormammu but he succeeds in outwitting the monster. Though Dormammu repeatedly and violently kills him, Doctor Strange has trapped Dormammu and himself in a repetitive time loop. The only way that Strange will release him from the loop is for the monster to agree to leave. Strange becomes a self-sacrificing savior who returns from the dead. This alone should be a massive red flag for Christians.

Film Comment: Sunday Bloody Sunday

The key to this excellent film is the music, the repeated melodies of Cosi fan tutti (1790), an operatic comedy by Wolfgang Mozart. The phrase translates into English as “They are all like that,” or “Thus do they all.” A literal translation of the phrase into English would be “so does all.” The opera is about an older man showing two young men that their girlfriends are unfaithful to them and then telling them that all women are like that.  In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the opera was considered to be highly vulgar and immoral. Some modern viewers would consider it to be misogynistic.

The lovers in Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971) are a divorced woman in her thirties (Glenda Jackson), an older Jewish homosexual physician (Peter Finch), and Bob (Murray Head), the handsome, shallow, and totally vapid bisexual young man with whom they both have sex. All three are aware of the others but the physician and the divorcee have never met. They each pretend not to care about the other lover.  Everything is kept on the surface, there is no depth to the relationships. The film critic, Roger Ebert, called the situation “psychic amputation.”

The Bloody Sunday reference comes from the fact that on Sunday Bob is leaving for New York City in America to promote his meaningless invention, which will almost certainly be a commercial failure. He is not involved enough with either lover to stay. He would rather pursue a wild and useless whim.

She “loves” Bob and would rather share him than lose him. He “loves” Bob and would rather share him than lose him. Bob does not love, he is too shallow for a real emotion. He simply does not even care. To quote Roger Ebert again, “This is not a movie about the loss of love, but about its absence.”

There are billions of lost people in the world, chasing after sex, love, money, power, pleasure, recognition, relationships, fame, fulfillment, and hundreds of other false gods. It is our responsibility to present them with the good news of the gospel.

Film Comment: Kike Like Me

The title of this film is a play on the  name of John Griffin’s 1964 book, Black Like Me.  Griffin darkened his skin so he could convincingly live for a time as a black man and then wrote of his experiences.

“Kike” is an ethnic slur word used to insult Jews. There are several possible explanations for the origin of the word, but one of the most likely is offered by Leo Rosten in his 1968 book, The Joys of Yiddish. 

Rosten says that many of the Jews entering the United States at the immigration center at Ellis Island in New York were illiterate. A common practice at the time was for the recording clerk to write the persons name and then for the illiterate person to place “his mark,” an X, between the personal name and the surname. 

Many Jews thought the X looked like a cross and refused to use it. Instead they wrote an O, a circle, which in Yiddish is “kikel” or “keikl.”

Kike Like Me (2007) is narrated by Jamie Kastner who presents the film as an examination of what it means to be Jewish in the modern world. Kastner travels to Jerusalem, Berlin, Poland, Paris, and the Auschwitz death camp. He becomes increasingly shocked and sarcastic as he sees more. He is disgusted to find that Auschwitz has a tourist souvenir shop.

Christians often forget that all of the first Christians were Jewish and that it is impossible to understand Christianity without understanding its Jewish origins. What does it mean to be perceived as Jewish? Watch this film if you dare.

Film Comment: The Box

The premise of The Box (2009) is simple. A nice couple's world is going nowhere. They (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) are not poor but are having money troubles. Norma and Arthur Lewis are comfortable but not satisfied. They are in careers which do not bring them personal fulfillment. Then Mr. Steward, the always creepy Frank Langella) arrives with The Box and the proposition.

The box is just that, a wooden box, otherwise totally empty. On the top of the box is a red button. Mr. Steward explains the offer being made by his "employers." He opens a briefcase and shows the couple the $1,000,000 carefully stacked inside. All the couple has to do is to push the button. These are the conditions of the offer:

1. When you push the button someone whom you do not know will die.
2. Mr, Steward will hand you the briefcase and walk away.
3. You are not allowed to ask any questions.
4. If you say no, Mr, Steward will simply walk away with the box and the money.
5. If you tell anyone else about the offer, the offer is terminated.

Of course, the couple decides to push the button, not really believing that anything will happen.  Then Mr. Steward delivers the money.

When Norma and Arthur try to give back the money, Mr. Steward tells them, "I'm sorry, Mr. Lewis, the button has been pushed." And later, he says, "If you didn't want anyone to get hurt, you shouldn't have pushed the button." It is obvious that the only way to pass the test is by not pushing the button.

There are numerous ideas invoked by this film.

1. Mr. Steward can be seen as a type of the Serpent and Norma and Arthur of Adam and Eve.
2. Eternal damnation and the possibility of redemption are mentioned but there is no mention of Jesus.
3. Arthur and Norma are being held personally responsible for their actions but their actions also have global consequences.
4. The belief that "we" are somehow superior to some unidentified "other person." If we profit by their death but are not personally involved in that death are we in some way guilty? What if they were a "bad" person?
5. Is there any way we can undo the bad things we have done?

There are many criticisms which can be leveled at this film. One which bothered me very much as a Southerner was the totally awful attempt at a Southern accent by Cameron Diaz. James Marsden does not seem to have even tried to sound Southern.

This is not a Christian film. It is not even a very good film. Parts of it border on incoherency. The name of the polite and friendly "villain" is Mr. Steward, who is faithfully working for his "employers." The film hints at control of the Earth by an extraterrestrial group with the compliance and assistance of the American government. There is a hint that the Earth may face destruction if we are judged to have failed in this "experiment." This is somehow tied to a very amorphous and numinous idea of the afterlife. The idea actually works better in the original short story written by Richard Matheson.

Film Comment: Summer of Fear

Summer of Fear, the somewhat misleading title of this 1996 made for television movie, gives the viewer no idea of what is about to happen. When you think you know what is going on, you don’t. The story does not actually produce fear in the viewer but more of an anticipation of what is about to happen, since you soon realize that something is not quite right with Simon. People expecting “blood and guts” have called it “too tame to be a thriller.” Admittedly, this is not an Oscar winning film. It is more like a film one would expect from the Lifetime Movie Network. (The film should not be confused with the more intense 1978 Wes Craven film, also titled Summer of Fear. Both films are based on the novel, Simon Says.)

Echo Bridge Home Entertainment posted this plot synopsis on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com):  “When Lucas Marshall and his family are attacked en route to their summer vacation, a passing drifter comes to their rescue. But soon after being welcomed into their home, the stranger engages the family in a treacherous game of deceit and manipulation, forcing them to realize that his encounter with them was no accident.” The film features several television actors who were once quite ubiquitous on television but who now are seldom seen.

Lucas (Gregory Harrison), a city-living middle class businessman, inherits his aunt’s summer home in a small town. While he and his family are traveling to the home for a summer of relaxation and home remodeling, they are carjacked by two thugs. The men seriously damage Lucas’ foot and ankle and he watches helplessly as they sexually molest his wife.

The only thing which prevents the men from raping the wife (Glynnis O’Connor) is the arrival of Simon (Corin Nemec), a local teenager, who chases the men away with his shotgun. The shotgun turns out to actually be just a large walking stick. Simon is a very resourceful and talented young man.

Gratefully, the family invites Simon to the summer home for a day. Soon, Simon is using their boat, fixing the malfunctioning clothes dryer, cleaning the house’s gutters, wooing the the teenaged daughter, becoming a buddy to the young pre-teen son, and, eventually, successfully seducing the mother. Simon is clearly in charge, taking over the family from the loving but ineffectual father and husband.

This is a story of deceit, guilt, psychological horror, hints of incest, anger, resentment, adultery, and a very dark, long-hidden secret seeking a resolution. It is an example of how “the sins of the fathers” can come back to haunt the children for generations to come.

Lucas ends the dangerous situation non-violently by bravely telling the truth. In the effort, he finally wins the respect of his family. He also seems to have finally come to respect himself.

Though this movie presents itself as a horror film, it ultimately is a drama about a disturbed family. Very prominent themes are personal responsibility, the destructiveness of keeping “secrets,” the generational effects of hatred and revenge, and the redemption which can come from “clearing the air.”

Film Comment: Bill and Ted;s Excellent Adventure

The video clip below is from a cult classic movie named Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989).  The film is truly hilarious because it is so ridiculously mindless and vapid. This is repeat of a prior post because the video was soon blocked by you tube. 

In 2688 AD/CE, Rufus is chosen to save the Utopian future by using a time traveling phone booth to go to 1988 and to ensure that the Two Great Ones,Bill and Ted , are able to form the rock music band Wyld Stallyns (Wild Stallions) because their music is destined to save the world. To preserve the future, Rufus has to help the two empty headed boys make a passing grade on their high school history project.

The future society has based itself upon the music and philosophy of the rock music band, resulting in world peace.

(Some videos will not play properly when you click on the triangle.  Instead,  click on the title line in the picture and the video will begin .  When the video is completed, close the You Tube pop-up window to return to this blog.) 

This video replay is blocked. Try this link instead.

“I think they want us to say something.”

“What should I say?”

“Make something up!”

“Be excellent to each other!”

“Be excellent to each other!”  This is excellent advice but is a very naive basis on which to build a society because of the fallen nature of man.  History has repeatedly proven that we will not “Be excellent to each other!”

Only a complete change in our nature, a total transformation in our understanding of the nature of reality, will suffice. We need to be of one mind about things.  Christians are capable of this because we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit.  We have the Mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:10, 2:16; Philippians 1:27)

“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” 1John 3:10-11

Film Comment: The Wild Dogs

There are several films carrying the title of The Wild Dogs. This is the 2002 film directed by Thom Fitzgerald in Bucharest (Bucuresti), Romania. The film won 4 awards in 2002 from the Atlantic Film Festival and 4 nominations from the Genie Awards and the Taos Talking Picture Festival. It is not of Oscar quality, but it definitely will make you think, and squirm.

Several stories are twined together into a slice of several days in the life of the rich elite and the poor beggars of Bucharest. It takes place during the period of the "cull" of the wild dogs which basically overran the city after the fall of the Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. The characters include, a highly reluctant city-employed dogcatcher; a Canadian pornographer in town to photograph fresh, very young meat; a cynical and corrupt diplomat and his disillusioned lonely wife; bands of abandoned children; hideously deformed "freaks of nature;" gypsies; beggars; and, of course, the dogs.

Unless you are a veteran viewer of hard-edged films I really can't recommend that you watch this. Some of it will make you angry, some of it will make you cry. Some of the language will offend you. You will not believe that Dorutu (a human torso) and "Sour Grapes" (whose knees bend backward as he walks around on all fours like a large crab) are real people, but they are. There were no CGI special effects involved in filming these characters.

The film causes extreme disagreements among its viewers. Some hate it, some say it is an accurate reflection of Bucharest. One Romanian emigrant said online, "Every country they got their poors." Claudita_993, a Romanian who resettled in Canada, said of the dogs, "I felt sorry for them and I despised them at the same time."

The point of the film, from a Christian perspective, is that the people in the film were the actual wild dogs, aimless and hopeless, scrounging each day just to survive, living utterly without purpose. There are no innocent people in the film, not even the children. The only innocents are the dogs. It is a powerful presentation of the sheer lostness of the world living without Jesus Christ.

Film Comment: The Wicker Tree

The Wicker Tree (2011), the sequel to the truly creepy cult classic film, The Wicker Man (1973), compares very unfavorably with its predecessor.  The first film stars the veteran film actors Christopher Lee (Count Dracula in numerous Hammer Studios films) and Edward Woodward (best known for The Equalizer television series and for Codename: Kyril). If the first film is a pair of silk pajamas, the second film is an old tattered flannel shirt which is missing a few buttons.

The Wicker Tree has no Christian message so why include a review of the film in this blog? The answer is because it has two characters who are explicitly portrayed as Christians.

Beth Boothby and her fiancée Steve are excited and horribly naïve evangelical missionaries from rural Texas (USA). They plan to spend two years evangelizing the pagan people of Scotland.

Beth and Steve find the people of the village of Tressock to be friendly, polite, and generous hosts, but no one is interested in any way in the religious tracts which the two attempt to distribute. The most enthusiastic response from the villagers comes during an assembly in their obviously unused church when Steve and Beth teach them the hymn, “There is Power in the Blood.” The Lord of the village tells the missionaries, “It’s going to be fun … trying to convert us heathens.”

It is almost immediately obvious to the viewer, but not to Beth and Steve, that something is not right in the quaint old village. Beth feels honored to be selected as the new May Day Queen. Steve thinks it is a fine game to  play the part of the Laddie. If you have seen the truly chilling first film you will not be surprised at what the missionaries ultimately find.

Objectionable elements in the film include nudity, vulgarity, sex, gore, and profanity., but there are two other points in the film which I found to be more objectionable.

The portrayal of evangelical Christians is little more than a crude caricature. Beth, while sincere, is unbelievably naïve and is totally unprepared to evangelize. Steve succumbs to the very first temptation set before him.

Beth and Steve are supposed to be from Texas (USA) but they are totally unable to hide the fact that they are British actors. Steve (Hebry Garrett) has a very difficult time staying Texan.

The Texans in the film all attend church wearing their cowboy hats and their missionary organization is “Cowboys for Christ.” In modern secular usage, “cowboy” often is a perjorative and derisive term denoting someone who is violent, stupid, and reckless.

This film, which I believe was intended as a Black Comedy, is insulting to evangelical Christians whom it portrays as naïve, simple, and gullible. It views them as people whose faith is as thin as onion paper and is based, in reality, on nothing.

Actually, the film is also insulting to neopagans, who would be repulsed at the idea of human sacrifice.

The other insulting thing in the film is a cynical utilitarian statement by the lord of the village. “I believe the old religion of the Celts fits our needs at this time. Isn’t that all you can ask of a religion?”

Totally ignore the 2006 Nicholas Cage remake of The Wicker Man.

Film Comment: Resources for the Christian in Deciding Which Films to Watch

I recently posted about the film, Megan Is Missing, the message of which I think you should know.  I was extremely hesitant to recommend that you watch the film because it is so intense and savage that it may actually cause psychological damage to the viewer.  Viewing this film would not have been an issue when I was a child because many Christians at that time kept themselves and their children intentionally ignorant outside of their churches. They used their churches as “shelters from the storm.”

Theirs was a “do not” religion.  They adamantly did not smoke, drink alcohol, dance, play cards or games, gamble, watch television, watch movies, read works of fiction, or any other of a long list of things.  There was also a very strong streak of anti-intellectualism.

Many Spirit-led Christians today, myself included, still reject many of the same activities as before but with a different understanding.  From a spirit of Christian freedom, they reject some things because they do not advance the cause of the Kingdom.  They pursue some other formerly rejected activities but always from a Christian worldview.  All activities are viewed through Christian glasses.

In order to have influence on the world, Christians need to be aware of the world. Paul quoted from pagan poets to make some of his doctrinal points. While showing a strong knowledge of the surrounding culture, Paul did not in any way endorse their worldview.  He used their words to advance his arguments. Paul’s attitude can be applied to Christian study in any discipline. We need Christians who have expert knowledge about Islam and other religions. We need Christians who have expert knowledge about ancient languages. We need Christians who have expert knowledge about world politics. We need Christians who have expert knowledge about child pornography and human sexual trafficking. We need Christians who have expert knowledge about modern Western popular culture. We need Christians who have expert knowledge about science and medicine. We need to be able to show the world that we are at the very least their intellectual equals, without any compromise.  We need to be able to show the world the treasure of the Gospel.

This is the attitude from which I do these film comments. Non-Christians have no understanding of the Truth but this does not mean that they have no insights. This does not mean that they have no virtue. This does not mean that they cannot produce anything beautiful. This also does not mean that we should ever compromise the Truth.

  

Below is a short list of Christian websites devoted to presenting a Christian  understanding of films and movies. These sites have several things in common. Most discuss films as a sort of pre-screening for the viewer and especially for viewers with children. Many discuss both the negative and the positive points of the films. Some of the sites rate films based on the presence or absence of God or religion, violence, sex, nudity, bad language, objectionable philosophies or worldviews, extreme political content, hidden messages, or for their suitability for viewing by children. The aim is to aid Christians in discernment about films they may watch.

Inclusion of a site in this list does not mean that I necessarily endorse all statements made on that site. Some of these sites produce screen pop-ups.

http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/

http://www.Movieguide.org/

http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/

http://www.dove.org/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/movies/

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/articles.php

http://www.kids-in-mind.com

http://vidangel.com/watch

http://AmericanCatholic.org/movies/

http://cbn.com/entertainment/Screen/

If a particular film becomes controversial within your church, it might be wise to choose a group of mature Christians to view the film and to give their suggestions and comments to the church.

Film Comment: Megan is Missing

One commenter on Netflix calls Megan is Missing, “Maybe the most disturbing thing I have ever seen.”  Another says, “Everyone with young teen children should watch this and take the warnings to heart.”  Many commenters just said, “Don’t watch this.”  At least one commenter makes the absolutely ludicrous claim that the film amounts to victim blaming. Some criticize the film saying that it is nothing more than "torture porn" and that it capitalizes on pedophilia and child abduction.  The reason I think that it is not intended to be exploitive is the included video statement by Marc Klaas, whose young daughter Polly was abducted, raped, and murdered.  Klaas seems to be a hardened, driven man.  I do not believe that he would put his endorsement on a film which exploits the very thing against which he has battled for years.

http://www.klaaskids.org/about/pollystory.html

http://www.pollyklaas.org/

A few Netflix commenters, who totally missed the point, said that the film is not a very good horror film. This is true and not true.  As a "horror film," Megan is Missing is technically not up to current standards; the acting is substandard, the special effects are minimal, there is little actual plot, and the "horror" does not appear until the last twenty minutes.  For caring, but naive, parents or for the clueless or careless teenager, this film can produce wide-eyed horror!

A warning: I would say that you should not watch this film. Once you have chosen to seen this film, you will be unable to “unsee” it; it will frighten, disgust, and militarize you. This film can be psychologically damaging to some people.  Two sixteen year old viewers reported being "mentally scarred" by the film, but another said, "I wish more girls my age would watch this; maybe they wouldn't go missing." The film contains near constant profanity, teenage sexuality, teenage drug use, rape, physical abuse, pedophilia, abduction, murder, fetishism, gore, and other disturbing elements.

The film is about two girls.  Fifteen year-old Megan is a sexually promiscuous drug-using party girl who maintains a close friendship with an unlikely partner, the sweet, naive, and innocent Amy, who is rejected by the other girls in town precisely because she is sweet, naive, and innocent. Megan's family life is terrible: her father is absent, her stepfather is in prison, and her mother's only parenting skill is to yell.  Amy's parents are loving, sweet, affectionate, conventional parents who know absolutely nothing about her personal life. Both sets of parents are totally unaware of what is happening to their girls.

Megan has met an interesting young man on line (she has never actually seen him because his "webcam is broken"). She agrees to meet him behind the local diner. She goes alone and disappears.

Amy is sure that something bad has happened to Megan and is afraid that the young man whom Megan met online is involved.  She contacts the young man online and during their argument, he insults and threatens her.  She takes her fears to the police and then suddenly disappears.

The last twenty minutes of the film are so intense and horrible that they disturbed even some of the long-time horror gore-hounds who complained about this film.  

There is no mention of Christianity or even of religion in this film.  That does not mean that there is nothing that Christians can take from this movie.

1. Be aware of who your children's friends are.

2. Be aware of your children's cell phone and internet activities.

3. Try not to frighten your children but make sure that they are aware of the tactics used by sexual predators.  As I have told my grandchildren, "Don't be afraid, just be smart."

Jesus said, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." Matthew 10:16 (KJV)

We are to be confident and wise and not do stupid things. We should teach our children also to be confident and wise and not to do stupid things.

……………………………………

Information about Internet safety.

http://christianity.about.com/od/practicaltools/tp/christianisps.htm

http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/11/20/internet-safety-christian-solutions/

http://www.internetsafety.com/press-internet-safety-solution-safe-eyes.php

Excellent, detailed child internet safety information.  Adults would do well to also follow these rules.  The information was reviewed by Steven Dowshen, MD

http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/net_safety.html

http://kidshealth.org/parent/misc/reviewers.html

Film Comment: This Is the End

Collect up at least one hundred film actors, singers, and entertainers at a wild drug and alcohol fueled party, then start the end of the world, complete with giant monsters and demons. The Earth cracks open and people fall into a burning Hell. Have the actors portray themselves, thrown into this situation.

This Is the End (2013) has a cast filled with big name celebrities: Jamez franco, Seth Rogan, Jay Baruchel, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Dany McBride, Michael Cera, Emma Watson, Mindy Kaling, David Krumholtz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Rihanna, Paul Rudd, The Backstreet Boys, and many others.

When the trouble starts everyone runs outside as the world begins to burn and explode around them.  Too dumb, selfish, cowardly, drug-addled, gluttonous, etc. to “escape” some do not even notice the disturbance.  But they soon will. The six main protagonists run back into the “safety” of the house.

The guys tell themselves they will survive because they are “good people,” but they realize that they are not.  The film does not show any of these people in a good light.  They all realize that they are damned.

The film, a comedy with some undeniably hilarious moments, features violence, gore, impalement, decapitation, penis jokes, nudity, profanity, cannibalism,  homosexuality, demons, intentional blasphemy, obscenities, betrayal, alcohol and drug abuse, self-righteousness, taking God’s name in vain, urination, vomit, obscene gestures, discussion of intent to rape in the presence of the intended victim, masturbation, demonic possession, prayer for the death of another person, sexual slavery, cowardice, self preservation at the expense of other’s lives.  Did I forget anything?

The supposedly ”happy” messages of the film are:

1.     Self-sacrifice confers instant entry into Heaven.

2.     In Heaven, we become angels.

3.     In Heaven, you can have anything you want, even a dooble.

4.     There is no need to be a “Christian” to enter into Heaven.

5.     Heaven is just another wild party.

6.     The Rapture looks like an alien abduction with a beam of light pulling the person up into the sky.

This highly offensive film intends to offend in every way imaginable, showing a contempt or disregard for any conventional understanding of propriety or morality.  It made me wonder.  The actors, portraying themselves, know that they are damned.

In the film, they are facing evidence which, at the very least, proves that God and the supernatural are real.

These are extremely talented, supposedly very intelligent comedians who have gone out of their way to intentionally offend nearly everything related to Christianity and the End Times.  Should not this film prod these actors into actually thinking about their real-life situations?

To some, or most of the actors, I am sure that this was all just a big joke.  Perhaps they are like many people and do not believe anything at all.  Post-modern moral and intellectual relativism at its logical conclusion.

…………………………………………

This is an end of the world film where the Earth is not merely damaged, but is actually destroyed.  Two other prominent films of this type are When Worlds Collide (1951), which depicts the chaos which erupts when a planet the size of Earth is on a collision course with our planet.  The other is Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012), a surprisingly tender and bittersweet love story.  Either of these two films would be an infinitely better use of your two hours than This Is the End.

What They Think of Us: Christmas Themed Horror Films

Below is an alphabetical list of some, but not all, of the Christmas themed horror films.  Most of these films are either set at Christmas time or feature a homicidal maniac dressed as Santa Claus.  In a few cases, the homicidal killer IS Santa Claus.  The list is by no means exhaustive.

Santa Claus is not actually a Christian religious symbol even though many people think that he is.  He is, of course, based very loosely on Nicholas of Myra, a very generous 4^th century bishop in Turkey.  Santa Claus is an increasingly secularized generic symbol of cheer, goodwill, and sharing with others.

These films demonstrate more than anything else a disrespect for the Christmas holiday.  Some express outright contempt.  Depending on the exact nature of their content, some of them may be blasphemous.

Bikini Bloodbath Christmas (2009)

Black Christmas (1974)

Black Christmas (2006)

Bloody Christmas (2012)

A Cadaver Christmas (2011)

Child’s Play (1988)

Christmas Evil (1980)

Christmas Nightmare (2001)

The Christmas Season Massacre (2001)

Christmas Slay (2014)

A Christmas Tale (2010)

Christmas With the Dead (2012)

The City of Lost Children (1995)

Day of the Beast (1995)

Deadly Little Christmas (2009)

Don’t Open Till Christmas (1984)

Elves (1980)

Feeders 2: Slay Bells (1998)

Gremlins (1984)

Initiation: Silent Night, Deadly Night 4 (1990)

Jack Frost (1997)

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Night Train Murders (1975)

One Hell of a Christmas (2002)

Ornaments (2008)

Psycho Santa (2003)

Rare Exports (2010)

Saint (2010)

Saint Nick (2011)

Santa Claus (1959)

Santa Claus and Merlin Battle Satan (1959)

Santa Claws (1996)

Santa’s Slay (2005)

Silent Night (2012)

Silent Night, Bloody Night (1974)

Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming (2013)

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

Silent Night, Deadly Night, Part 2 (1987)

Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out! (1989)

Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy maker (1991)

Silent Night of the Living Dead (in development)

Silent Night, Zombie Night (2009)

Tales From the Crypt (1972)

To All a Good Night (1980)

Two Front Teeth (2006)

Wind Chill (2007)

Three really oddball films:

Bad Santa (2003) This (and its unrated version, Badder Santa) sounds like a horror film but is actually a highly vulgar comedy.

Nixon and Hogan Smoke Christmas (2010) A drug comedy.

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964) A children’s film featuring the first film appearance of the legendarily bad actress, Pia Zadora.

Film Comment: The Phantom of the Paradise

At the grocery store I recently heard a little ten year old girl tell a woman, “When I’m twenty, I’m going to be rich.  I’m going to be an actress and a model.”  The child was quite serious, not realizing the near impossibility of her goal.  She certainly was unaware of the many compromises that people are willing to make to reach such a goal.

The Phantom of the Paradise (1974) is a highly exaggerated and stylized expression of the quest for success at any price.  The film incorporates influences, to name a few, from Faust, The Phantom of the Opera, The Cabinet of Dr, Caligari, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and Psycho.

The film concerns a music producer who has sold his soul to the devil, a drug-addled mindless rock star who is complicit in the evil contract, and a mutilated and vengeful music composer.  The film is violent and bloody and all about success at any price. “He sold his soul for rock n’ roll.”

How much are you willing to sacrifice for your goals?  Are your goals worthy goals?

Film Comment: It’s Not About the Nail

Watch this short video, It’s Not About the Nail (2013), written and directed by Jason Headley.  The predominant reaction to this humorous film is that it is about relationships between men and women and that it is specifically about marriage.

In my prior film comments, I have taken the stance that films may have applications from a Christian perspective even when that was not the intent of the film’s creators.   Films deal in archetypes and metaphors which can be interpreted in multiple ways.   Films can often be seem as parables.  This is acceptable as long as one realizes that works of art may not fit perfectly into any one philosophical system.

To the Christian, this short film has very stark symbolism.  The woman complains of her headaches.  The man tries to reply, “Maybe it is the nail in your forehead.”  The woman angrily replies that “It’s not about the nail.”

Christians can very clearly see that non-Christians lack Jesus in their lives and that many of their life problems stem from that fact.  The Christian knows that Jesus is right there, right in front of the non-believer’s face.  The non-believer cannot see Jesus at all.

The non-believer will say, :I don’t believe that.  That doesn’t exist.  My problems have to be from some other cause, maybe from you. … It is not about the nail!”

But, to the Christian, everything is about The Nail.