I always remember professing my love for Roald Dahl during a conversation about children’s literature, only to have a friend shoot me down with a pointed, “He was an anti-Semite, you know.” Well, no, actually I had no idea. After reading almost all of his work for children and quite a few of his short stories for adults, I had no clue that this man had any problem with the Jews. If it was there in his work, it was not obvious to an unsuspecting reader (i.e. me) and therefore had no power to influence my beliefs. To this day I don’t even know if this revelation was true. I never pursued it, never googled it, never really wavered in my affection for stories about Big Friendly Giants and chocolate factories, but I’m left with the stinging words of that friend, words that implied I should know better than to align myself with the work of someone whose personal beliefs I did not share.

Which brings me to Mel Gibson. I discovered Mel when I was twelve years old and promptly fell head over heels in love. I had never seen a more beautiful, vulnerable, or badass man in my life, and with those stunning blue eyes, he even blew my third grade crush on Sylvester Stallone out of the water. For months he was all I could think about, and then a girl at school dropped a bombshell, “He’s got six kids and is super religious.” After I told her to stop lying to me, I began to wonder, “What if he’s nothing like I imagined?”

As time went on and I began to see more of Mel, I quickly learned that he was nothing like I imagined, and that the same things that made him hot as Martin Riggs might not be quite so attractive in real life...things like alcohol and cigarettes and a temper. As seventh graders my neighbor and I wrote stories about our future husbands, and the ones about Mel weren’t always pretty. Even twenty years ago, his self-destructive impulses were evident to a pair of junior high girls (which makes me wonder how any grown woman could become involved with him without an inkling of a dark side), and it wouldn’t be long before his alarming views of women, gays, etc. came to light.

The point is that liking Mel has always been problematic, and the window of time where his work and his personal life could be separated was woefully short. The question is: should a person’s personal life inform the way we view their work, or should the work be taken at face value? People may have avoided Edge of Darkness because Mel’s reputation is in the toilet, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie or detract from his performance in it. Even now he remains a compelling actor, and there’s a significant body of work behind him that confirms the same. For all of the awkward, fidgety, foot-in-mouth energy he emanates in interviews, his performances seem to epitomize the old Oscar Wilde quote, “Give a man a mask and he will tell you the truth.” How can someone convey such pain and vulnerability onscreen without having some genuine understanding of the human condition?

As a movie-going public, I don’t think any of us are in a position to judge Mr. Gibson or guess at what makes him tick. It’s entirely possible that he doesn’t even know, but as an audience we do have to make a decision. Do we keep embracing the movies we have loved regardless of recent developments? Is it still okay to drool over Lethal Weapon and swoon over Forever Young and cry our way through Signs? (And don’t tell me you didn’t cry at that last supper scene or when Morgan almost died.) Is it okay to see his next movie in the theater (presuming it’s somewhat appealing), or is it better to save our pennies than to line the pockets of someone who may not exactly be deserving of the level of power that accompanies extreme wealth? (Off the top of my head, I’d rather just mail a check to Bono or some other charitable organization than fuel Mel's belief that he owns Malibu.) Moreover, I wonder how future generations will view him. At some point it seems as though the face you tried to present to the world should be given more consideration than the blemished one you wore in private.

Discuss.

Mel Gibson | Musings

There is an extremely popular new Christian church that was founded in my Seattle 'hood: Mars Hill. The Church touts itself as a young and hip type of Christianity, has rock bands plays its gatherings, and has its own club attached to the church. It is also very controversial, as the reputation and opinions of modern evangelical Pastor Mark Driscoll (with his t-shirts, jeans, and leather jackets) have reached far beyond his flock, as he preaches old school with new language: against feminism, premarital sex, homosexuals, etc.

Driscoll recently made some press (again) in his sermon from February 14, 2010, when he focused on Luke 4:31-41, aka "Jesus and Demons". Driscoll waxed poetic about Satan and demons and such. Even coffee!

And some people really get freaked out [by demons] and it’s like “Oh, my coffee’s hotter today than it was yesterday, hell is hot. This is must be the coffee demon coming to scald me from my enemy.” I mean it’s just, it’s goofy, it’s goof-tastic. That’s where some people go. They go goof-tastic on it.

(I feel a new bumper sticker coming on...)

Anyways, in Moviepie-land, what grabs our attention (other than coffee, of course) is when he starts talking about Hollywood, and, well. Avatar. Let me just let him speak for himself:

...The world tempts you to sin, to use people, to disobey God, to live for your own glory instead of his own, to be a consumer instead of generous, that’s the world system.

And if you don’t believe me, go see Avatar, the most demonic, satanic film I’ve ever seen. That any Christian could watch that without seeing the overt demonism is beyond me. I logged on to christianitytoday.com and the review was reflective of Christianity today, very disappointing. See, in that movie, it is a completely false ideology, it’s a sermon preached. It’s the most popular movie ever made, and it tells you that the creation mandate, the cultural mandate is bad, that we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t develop culture, that’s a bad thing.

Primitive is good and advanced is bad and that we’re not sinners, we’re just disconnected from the divine life force, just classic, classic, classic paganism, that human beings are to connect, literally, with trees and animals and beasts and birds and that there’s this spiritual connection that we’re all a part of, that we’re all a part of the divine. It presents a false mediator with a witch. It presents false worship of created things rather than Creator God in absolute antithesis to Romans 1:25, which gives that as the essence of paganism. It has a false incarnation where a man comes in to be among a people group and to assume their identity. It’s a false Jesus. We have a false resurrection. We have a false savior. We have a false heaven. The whole thing is new age, satanic, demonic paganism, and people are just stunned by the visuals. Well, the visuals are amazing because Satan wants you to emotionally connect with a lie.

And some of you say, “This is my first time, is he a fundamentalist?” I’ve never been accused of that. I’ve been accused of many things, not being a fundamentalist. I do love film, I love story. My degree’s in communication. I’ve got two home theater systems. I’ve got three Tivos, all right, I am not against technology and the arts. Our film crew just was in L.A. at Universal Studios shooting on the Spartacus set to get all of our footage for Good Friday. Some of my friends are filmmakers and poets and artists and we’re a very creative church. We just don’t like Satan, that’s all. We love the arts, we just don’t like Satan. And it’s amazing to me that Christians are going to the movie going “That was so enlightening.” No, that was so darkening. It’s a worldview. It’s the way to view the world. “Oh, the problem isn’t sin, it’s disconnected from the divine demonic spiritual life force. Oh, the problem is not that I need a savior, the problem is that I need to live in tune with creation.” This is all eastern garbage -ism. It just is. “Spark a divinity within you, God is in everything. You don’t need God to come and save you.” That’s all it is, it’s worldliness.

Now, Moviepie readers may remember that I'm one of the few people in the world apparently that kind of hated Avatar. I felt (and still feel) that viewers fell all over themself with praise for this movie because they were blinded by the fancy CGI and 3D even while they readily acknowledged that the script was cheesy and the characters were weak. "But it was really COOL looking!"

Well, now I know that you were all blinded by SATAN! HA!

Poor Mark Driscoll, with his three Tivos and two home theater systems. I guess he won't be buying the special edition of Avatar when it comes out on Blu-Ray. But I'll give him some credit. He did manage to change the mind of at least one person via this sermon: If the film is indeed demonic and Satanic, suddenly I might like Avatar... just a little bit more. ;-)

[Read the full Mars Hill sermon.]

Musings | News

It is common knowledge that actors and other celebrities are airbrushed for mass consumption. In print advertising, everyone is gorgeous, thinner, and has no pores. But one trend that I've noticed the last few years is not bigger breasts on the women (nothing new), but, well... how do you say... male enhancement, especially for the lead male.

The first time I noticed this was in the movie poster for Fool's Gold, starring Matthew McConaughey as a horndog adventurer. I did a double-take because my eye was drawn immediately not to the duo's dazzling smiles or bronzed skin, but directly to Matthew's shorts, where he looked, well, quite happy to see Kate Hudson. I showed the ad to several people, and they concurred that his crotch was the star of the poster. But, considering it was Matthew McConaughey, it wasn't really a huge shock, just kind of... ew.

But then I get to the stranger image that popped up (so to speak) in my inbox the other day: the just released DVD cover art for the kiddie adventure Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. It is quite similar to the film's movie poster, but with notable differences. The gaggle of folks gathered around Ben Stiller has been pared down from almost a dozen to a select few. For all practical purposes, Stiller is still in that generic stance that reflects the polyester men's slacks ads from the 70s... you know, the ones where the pants were so flat in front that the men were rendered completely sexless like a Ken doll.

But Museum's marketers apparently will have none of that neutered business: Sex sells! (Even apparently for a movie aimed at children.) Note how the theatrical poster is darker, and Ben is carrying a flashlight (which also handily obscures any details). But now on the DVD, the image is lightened up and is, well, digitally enhanced. Is it just me, or does Ben weirdly look like he is about to bust out of his pants? It seems even stranger because the rest of his uniform's slacks are so nicely pressed and non-wrinkled.

Upon closer look, however, the advertisers probably had to butch-up Stiller a bit. Why? Well, among the shuffled side characters, Owen Wilson's cowboy now appears just to Stiller's side on the DVD art (Owen was tiny on the original poster). One glance shows you all you need to know: Owen doesn't need to bust out of his pants to be sexier than Ben—he's wearing leather chaps! And everyone knows that leather chaps trump polyester pants any day... no matter how much Photoshop help you get from marketing.

Musings