Recently in Culture (Film) Category

[Note: This weekend the Sex and the City movie racked up $55.7 million at the box office, making if one of the most profitable misogynistic films in history. In honor of that achievement, I've dusted off this post from 2005.]

After six seasons and ninety-three episodes, Sex and the City aired its final episode last February on HBO. But like a case of genital herpes, the show refuses to go away. The first two seasons line the walls of every video store in the country while HBO continues to beams encore episodes of the fourth season into millions of homes. TBS even paid one million per episode for the syndication rights to a bowdlerized version suitable for the ever declining standards of basic cable.

The expansion of venues will ensure that more people are exposed to this magnum opus, one of the seminal works of our age. Anyone who has watched every episode -- all 46.5 hours -- will have witnessed a work of genius in what is indisputably the greatest (and longest) misogynist masterwork ever to be captured on film.

HBO has produced some great dramas over the years -- from the brilliant The Sopranos to the intriguing Deadwood -- but nothing can match the "novel of ideas" that is Sex. What is truly remarkable, though, is the way the series mirrors the work of Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger. In 1905, Weininger published Geschlecht und Charakter (Sex and Character) in which he argued that all people are composed of a mixture of the male and the female substance. Wikipedia provides a useful summary of the Austrian's view: "The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical."

Someday, feminist scholars will produce dissertations that clarify and outline how the series embodied the philosophy of Weiniger. The best I can do for now is point out the connection. Here, for example, is a representative passage from Sex and Character:

Expelled {Documentary} - Ben Stein's new documentary Expelled is a Rorschach test for revealing people's true feelings about intellectual freedom. Not surprising, many people--especially academic and media elites--loathe the film. While these groups often claim to value freedom of expression and thinking that challenges the status quo, they are often rigidly doctrinaire. Most blog readers will find this point obvious, for the blogosphere is crowded with young academics that use pseudonyms for fear that they will never get tenure if they speak their minds.

But there are many Americans that are surprised by the McCarthyite tactics that are used to quell dissenting views. It is this group that Stein and company are aiming to shock in this amusing, intriguing polemic.

The film doesn't attempt to present the scientific case for ID (though Stein promises this will be included on the DVD version) nor does it attempt to undermine the credibility of neo-Darwinism (though the Darwinists in the film do a masterful job of that, albeit unintenionally). Stein's primary focus is on the freedom of academics to merely consider an idea that is deemed verboten in the Ivory Towers. He uses a series of interviews, interspersed with Cold War imagery, in a way that that is both entertaining and enlightening. It is only when it veers off into the historical connection between Darwinism and Nazism that the film stumbles. The conjunction between the two is indisputable, though ultimately as irrelevant as the connection between religion and ID. Scientific theories must be judged on their merit, not on unfortunate outcomes that may result.

Another caution is that Expelled isn't a fair movie. When Stein interviews advocates of ID he selects scientists and philosophers that are thoughtful and sober while the Darwinists tend to be either a bit nutty (Bill Provine) or unable to keep from damaging their own cause (PZ Myers). Likewise, he stacks the decks in ID's favor by interviewing intellectual heavyweights like David Berlinski while allowing neo-Darwinism to be defended by Richard Dawkins, a man who is highly educated but of only modest intellect. The result is a film that isn't balanced and isn't fair. But it is both funny and infuriating. At least it is, as Stein would no doubt say, if you value freedom. Rating: B+

Salvo {Quarterly Journal} -- Salvo has been described as "Adbusters for Church Kids" (by a detractor) and "like Richard Weaver back in the flesh with cyberpunk clothes" (by a fan). Both the praise and the criticism are apt; Salvo is both snarky and sincere, ultra-hip and uber-conservative. But it's also one of the few journals for people who can appreciate Adbusters, cyberpunk, and Richard Weaver.

A publication of The Crux Project, Salvo is "dedicated to the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence." Such an anachronistic mission statement seems more fitting for dusty church bulletins than for a journal filled with satiric faux ads and articles on cutting-edge topics. Yet the quarterly manages to fill a void for its target audience (which ranges from sharp young Christians to oldheads like me who miss re:generation Quarterly). Not everyone will "get it" and not everyone will like it. But for those who are looking a quirky, culturally relevant, and intellectually stimulating read, Salvo may be just what you're looking for. Rating: A-

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War {Audiobook} -- Zombies have become the monster metaphor of choice for our post-9/11 culture. Whereas vampires and werewolves once fulfilled the role as Threatening Other, zombies show us the Threatening Us. The attack from within--from our own friends, family, and neighbors--is what makes the threat of zombies so poignant. But while most zombie tales focus on the geographically local (New York City in I Am Legend, England in 28 Days Later), Max Brooks offers a global scale apocalypse in World War Z.

Brooks frames the story as an oral history, a series of post-war interviews with notable survivors of the "Zombie World War." Each interview provides an intriguing personal perspective while revealing the larger events that transform a world plagued by the "living dead." This structure lends itself well to the audiobook format. The abridged version, which won an the 2007 Audie Award for best Multi-Voiced Performance, is read by a host of actors, including Alan Alda, Mark Hamill, Henry Rollins, Rob Reiner, and John Turturro. (Here's a sentence I never imagined I'd write: Alan Alda's performance is absolutely riveting.)

Brooks' has a superb eye for the intriguing how-did-he-ever-think-of-that detail. He also manages to keep the focus on humanity, even when fighting an enemy that has lost theirs. Even those who aren't fans of the horror genre will find themselves hooked by this gripping alternative history. Rating: A+

"Great movie quotes become part of our cultural vocabulary," said American Film Institute director Jean Picker Firstenberg last year as he unveiled AFI’s 100 Years: 100 Movie Quotes: America’s Greatest Quips, Comebacks and Catchphrases. The AFI list is as comprehensive as it is dull; a mix of the classic ("Here's looking at you, kid."), the banal ("I feel the need - the need for speed!), and the downright silly ("Nobody puts Baby in a corner."). Left off of the list were many of the enduring favorites of our misspent youths (think anything from Caddyshack or the Monty Python movies) that are repeated ad nauseum by college freshman as if they were fresh inside jokes.

Somewhere there is a middle ground between the trite classics and the trite cult standards. To fill that gap I offer the following fifty quotable lines of dialogue from movies that are neither overly familiar nor exceedingly obscure. The criteria for making the cut was that the quote had to be relatively short, profanity-free, and provide either a kernel of wisdom, insight, or humor. Some of them come from exceptional films while others are gleaned from movies that are merely watchable. I tried to choose representative quotes so your feelings about the snippet of dialogue are likely to mirror your appreciation of each movie. These are not necessarily the best or even my favorite movie quips (though some are) but they are all, in my opinion, deserving of more attention.

Here then is my list of 50 memorable (but obscure) movie quotes:

I've dedicated seven years to The Sopranos. I've spent 85 hours watching one of the most morally and emotionally ambiguous serial narratives in modern times. I waited through a painfully long 16-month hiatus to find out how the series--one of the great works of pop culture--would be resolved. And tonight I sat through another 55 torturous minutes of waiting for the ending only to have my dedication and patience rewarded with…a non-ending ending.

David Chase should have read his Aristotle: The plot, the most important feature of a tragedy, must be “a whole,” with a beginning, middle, and end. As a whole The Sopranos had a beautiful beginning, an intriguing middle, and no ending whatsoever.

Many critics, bloggers, and other pundits will be exclaiming: "I get it." But they are as stoned as Tony when he made that exclamation in the Nevada desert. The truth is that there is nothing to "get." In fact, it's obvious now that we all gave series creator David Chase too much credit. He simply didn't know where the story was going or how to end it in a way that did justice to one of the best serial dramas in history.

Many people--otherwise bright people who usually aren't so easily conned--will praise Chase for his brilliant non-ending ending. But the truth is that Chase is laughing at all those who think his non-ending ending actually has a purpose, or meaning. But the fact remains that a plot requires an ending, a real ending, and Chase has marred The Sopranos by not giving it one.

"That movie was totally overrated. Now if you want to see a really worthwhile flick you should see..." Because film buffs like me say this type of thing all the time so I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to actually list 50 of the most overrated and 50 of the most underrated films of all time.

A few of the overrated films are just plain bad while most are merely undeserving of the critical or popular praise they receive. The underrated films, though, are all examples of excellent cinema and should be considered at least slightly more worthy than the corresponding "overrated" film with which they share a category. The categories, which range from the obvious to the just plain odd, are intended to cover a broad selection of interests but are not meant to be exhaustive.

Here then are 100 of the most overrated and underrated films of all time (overrated on the left, underrated on the right):

1. Most overated/underrated: Raging Bull | Metropolitan (Raging Bull is often referred to as one of the best films of the '80s. Such people obviously do not like either a) movies or b) humanity for the film is all style and no substance. Metropolitan, on the other hand, is nearly the opposite of Raging Bull in every way. It is urbane, witty, and subtle. But the main difference is that Whit Stillman's charming little film shows a depth of undertanding about the human condition that is completely lacking in Scorsese's misanthropic "masterpiece.")

2. Movie about fraternities: Animal House | PCU (I hesitate to include these two together simply because the criminally overhyped John Belushi shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as comic genius Jeremy Piven.)

3. Disney movie about dogs: 101 Dalmations | The Fox and the Hound

4. John Wayne movie: The Searchers | Big Jake (Both are about the search for a kidnapped family member but Big Jake has two things missing from The Searchers: love and humor.)

5. Harrison Ford movie Witness | The Mosquito Coast

6. Movie about a rock band: Gimme Shelter | Some Kind of Monster (I'm not a fan of either the Rolling Stones or Metallica. But Gimme Shelter shows that deep down the Stones are uninteresting dullards while Monster reveals the members of Metallica to be fascinatingly neurotic.)

7. Cold war movie : Dr. Stangelove | Crimson Tide

8. Mobster movie: Scarface | Miller's Crossing

9. Audrey Hepburn movie: Breakfast At Tiffany's | Roman Holiday

10. Movie about a pig: Charlotte's Web | Babe (As film critic critic Dann Gire once said, Babe is the Citizen Kane of talking pig movies.)

[Note: Because I'm on traveling today, I didn't have a chance to write a new post. After a week of serious fare, I thought it was time to recycle a post on a less weighty topic.]

"Great movie quotes become part of our cultural vocabulary," said American Film Institute director Jean Picker Firstenberg last year as he unveiled AFI’s 100 Years: 100 Movie Quotes: America’s Greatest Quips, Comebacks and Catchphrases. The AFI list is as comprehensive as it is dull; a mix of the classic ("Here's looking at you, kid."), the banal ("I feel the need - the need for speed!), and the downright silly ("Nobody puts Baby in a corner."). Left off of the list were many of the enduring favorites of our misspent youths (think anything from Caddyshack or the Monty Python movies) that are repeated ad nauseum by college freshman as if they were fresh inside jokes.

Somewhere there is a middle ground between the trite classics and the trite cult standards. To fill that gap I offer the following fifty quotable lines of dialogue from movies that are neither overly familiar nor exceedingly obscure. The criteria for making the cut was that the quote had to be relatively short, profanity-free, and provide either a kernel of wisdom, insight, or humor. Some of them come from exceptional films while others are gleaned from movies that are merely watchable. I tried to choose representative quotes so your feelings about the snippet of dialogue are likely to mirror your appreciation of each movie. These are not necessarily the best or even my favorite movie quips (though some are) but they are all, in my opinion, deserving of more attention.

Here then is my list of 50 memorable (but obscure) movie quotes:

One of the most underrated books about one of the most underrated art forms is Scott McCloud’s 'Understanding Comics." Behind the seemingly mundane medium of comics lies a fascinating art form and McCloud provides an excellent explanation for how visual imagery and symbolism create communicate in sequential art. While the book provides many concepts that could be transferred to the realm of film, one of its most illuminating explanations is the role of representation and symbolism.

In his book, McCloud provides a map of visual iconography (i.e., pictures, words, symbols) that he calls the Big Triangle. On one end of the triangles base lies a spectrum of images that spans from visual resemblance (e.g., photography and realistic painting) to iconic abstraction (e.g., cartoons). The closer the visual representation comes to the level of iconic abstraction the more the observer is able to use their imagination to 'fill in the details" and allow themselves to identify with the image. Visual resemblance narrows the level of identification while iconic abstractions broadens it. Think, for example, which smile is more representative of a particular emotion: the complex smirk on the face of the Mona Lisa or the simple curve of the 'Have a Nice Day" face?

This notion of identification is useful for understanding the core problem with sexual imagery in cinema. As images become more graphic or visually iconic the viewer becomes less able to directly identify with the characters involved. On the most extreme end of the spectrum, the purely p*rnographic movie, the concept of identification borders on the absurd. No one who watches such a film can 'identify" with the characters since they have been reduced to mere objects.

The Academy Award-nominated documentary Jesus Camp exposes a group of Americans that are insular, close-minded, xenophobic, and obsessed with tying religion to politics. I’m referring, of course, to film critics: “the scariest movie you'll see all year” (TV Guide); “a genuine subversive threat to the nation” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) ; "...one of the most unnerving films of the year." (L.A. Times) "...the possibility of a right-wing Christian American version of what happened in China no longer seems entirely far-fetched." (The New York Times). Such hyperventilating reactions to the film say more about America than anything in this 2005 documentary, recently released on DVD.

Your own reaction to the film will depend on how shocked you are by Pentecostalism. The film is obstensibly about "evangelicals" yet every Christian depicted in the documentary attends some sort of charismatic church. The casual viewer would be left with the impression that being “saved” causes all evangelicals to speak in tongues, convulse uncontrollably, weep hysterically, and vote Republican.

Exposing the voting patterns of these strange creatures is the primary motive (if not the sole reason) for this documentary. It is not just that these people hold strange beliefs but that they hold strange beliefs and are (a) allowed to vote for Republicans and (b) indoctrinate their children who will one day be allowed to vote for Republicans. Pentecostals have existed in America for over a hundred years, but since they tended to vote for Democrats, the Cultural Elite took no notice of them. It is only after their political realignment that it became clear that their intentions are to install a theocracy and make glossolalia the national language.

In 1968, a coalition of theater owners co-founded the Motion Picture Association of America�s rating system. Although the system is technically voluntary, almost every movie that is released in the U.S. carries one of five ratings: G � all ages admitted; PG � Parental guidance suggested; PG-13 � Parents strongly cautioned; R � Restricted (no one under 17 allowed without a guardian); and NC-17 � No one 17 and under admitted.

The MPAA issues the PG rating to indicate that �a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend� though they admit that �In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement.�

The Christian filmmakers behind the low-budget movie "Facing the Giants" certainly disagree. Because of its evangelistic elements, the MPAA found that the movie �contained strong 'thematic elements' that might disturb some parents." A marketing rep associated with the film was told that it was "decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions.�

Alex Kendrick, a co-writer and co-producer on the film, says "The reason we're making movies in the first place is that we hope they inspire people to think twice about their relationships with God.� I applaud Kendrick�s purpose and agree that the movie does not deserve the PG rating. If the claims of the MPAA are true and the film truly does have Christian �thematic elements� then it deserves nothing less than a PG-13 rating.

Lest you think I�m being facetious or overly cute, let me be perfectly clear: I�m dead serious. Christians should insist that any movie with a �thematic content� that is intentionally evangelistic should carry the PG-13 rating.

Let me start by clarifying, though, that I�m not just talking about Biblical stories or epics. Everyone recognizes that the Bible contains depictions of sex, rape, attempted sodomy, incest, murder, fratricide, attempted genocide, nudity, drunkenness, prostitution, genital mutilation, kidnapping, and theft -- and that�s just in Genesis! In fact, if the Bible were filmed in a cinema verite style rather than given the Cecil B. Demille treatment, it wouldn�t get an R rating, it�d be rated NC-17.

While The civil rights movement was led by Christians, it is easy to forget how many believers -- particularly evangelicals in the South -- did not support the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On this day set aside to honor this great leader we should read his “Letter from Birmingham Jail" and reflect on how his words are applicable to us today.

I’d also add that for most of us Gen X-ers, our knowledge of Dr. King begins with his assassination and works backwards to his “I Have a Dream" speech. We tend to forget the small yet momentous events that sparked the civil rights movement in America. To help fill in some of the gaps in our education I would highly recommend viewing the superb Boycott.

Because the movie came out on HBO and was about a boycott of public busses in the ‘50s, it’s not hard to see why it slipped beneath most people’s radar. But the inherent drama of this true story is as exciting as anything you’re likely to see in the theaters this year. Watching it will make you wonder why we can’t seem to muster the same will to fight injustice today.

The most sexually disturbing independent film of 2005 is a critical success. The movie won awards at the Sundance, Stockholm, and San Francisco International film festivals. Roger Ebert called it the best film he saw at the recent Cannes film festival. Many critics have included it on their year end list of best movies. And no, it�s not the �gay cowboy movie.�

Contrary to the assertion of South Park�s Eric Cartman, independent films are not always about �gay cowboys eating pudding." Usually they are about alienation, and loneliness, and the struggle to connect in a world that just can�t appreciate passive-aggressive cutesiness. Me, You, and Everyone We Know, the debut film of performance artist turned director Miranda July, is a prime example, a story about how an eccentric performance artist struggles to connect in a world that thinks that performance artists are talentless hacks. July is not exactly without skill and although it is ridiculously over praised, the film does have its charms. As the Chicago Reader film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum says, �It stayed with me in spite of what sometimes seems like an expedient compulsion to work over the public's nervousness about sex with giddy taboo-breaking.�

Referring to the boundary pushing as �giddy taboo-breaking� is a bit understated considering the taboo is not sex between Wyoming cowboys but the sexualization of children.

Several years ago Errol Morris produced a brilliant documentary about Fred Leuchter, an engineer who became an expert on execution devices and was later hired by revisionist historian Ernst Zundel to "prove" that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. After Z�ndel was arrested in Canada for publishing neo-Nazi materials, he hired Leuchter, as an expert on gas chambers, to go to Auschwitz and gather evidence. Leuchter collected samples of bricks and mortar from the concentration camp, and after performing his own objective analysis, determined that the Holocaust was a "myth."

Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. presents a compelling puzzle: how can could a genial, seemingly intelligent man like Leuchter could fall for such nonsense? Although not as insightful as Morris�s work, Brian Flemming�s new documentary The God Who Wasn�t There raises similar questions. Whereas Leuchter is a simple-minded fool who was duped by evil men, Flemming is a seemingly bright young man who is deluded by his own gullibility. Like Mr. Death, though, The God Who Wasn�t There offers an intriguing glimpse into the mind of a historical revisionist.

Being a Christian I knew I wasn�t going to agree with Flemming�s thesis that the existence of Jesus Christ is a myth. Still, I expected that the documentary would provide an avenue for interesting dialogue, similar to the way The Da Vinci Code opened the way for conversations about the historical Jesus. Unfortunately, Dan Brown�s goofy book is a model of scholarship compared to the sources used for this film. When challenging 2000 years of history, a filmmaker should present a cogent and compelling case based on respectable historians. But instead Flemming relies on pseudo-scholars and a Canadian writer who self-published a book on historical Jesus. The closest the movie comes to presenting a real New Testament scholar is Robert M. Price, a third-stringer from the Jesus Seminar.

Rather than just claiming that modern people should be skeptical of a historical Jesus, Flemming alleges that the Apostle Paul and other early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus. His attempts to justify this absurd claim�something I�ve never heard even the most radical scholar argue�provides an unintentionally amusing context for the rest of the film. Flemming is trying to show that Christians are dupes who are not even aware of the history of their own religion yet attempts to build this case based on claims that no one who is aware of history could take seriously.

Francois Truffaut once claimed that there could be no such thing as an antiwar-movie since even a gruesome war movie makes war look energetic and exciting. If the French director had lived long enough to see Sam Mendes� latest film he might have changed his opinion. Jarhead is so lifeless and dull that it could quality to be the first true antiwar movie

Before winning an Oscar for his directing debut on American Beauty, Mendes worked as a stage director in the British theater. Mendes� was an acclaimed theater director which may explain why his moves always have the staged unreality of plays. Jarhead, for example, is like a wartime version of Waiting for Godot. In the Beckett play, the characters wait aimlessly for Godot � a character who never appears; in Jarhead the characters wait aimlessly for combat, which also never comes. Critic Vivian Mercier summation of the two act play is equally applicable to the two-hour film: "nothing happens, twice."

The banality of the film, though, is not solely the fault of the director for Mendes faithfully adapted it from the equally banal bestseller. The book by Anthony Swofford is an alledged first-person account of his training to be a Marine sniper and his experiences�or lack of experience-- in the first Gulf War. Swofford fancies himself to be a Norman Mailer-style tough guy-intellectual, the type who reads Camus� The Stranger before doing a max set of push-ups. But instead of producing a �90s version of The Naked and the Dead, Swofford creates a fantasy world that bears little resemblance to the real Marine Corps.

Although the new Fox Searchlight biopic Kinsey won�t open until Friday, there is already buzz that it will be an Oscar contender for Best Picture. Based on the life of Alfred Kinsey, an obscure entomologist who became a world renowned sex researcher, the movie has been receiving rave reviews since it debuted at the Telluride Film Festival. Roger Ebert believes it's �likely to be the best-received biopic since "A Beautiful Mind." And Jan Wahl of the San Francisco Examiner raves, ��it�s refreshing to find movies�giving the audience respect for having brains and tastes. Kinsey is one that gets it right.� �It is a tribute to a great man decades ahead of his time,� adds NBC�s Jeffrey Lyons.

"Any sort of sexual education that anybody has had in the past 50 years came right from the [Kinsey] Institute," says Laura Linney, the actress who plays Kinsey�s wife in the movie, "So his impact is enormous and in ways that it's probably impossible for us to completely grasp, but he changed the culture."

Linney has a point. Much of the sex education curriculum in America can be traced back to the studies of Kinsey and his institute. But based on the praise for the film (or the fact that the film was even made) it�s doubtful that the movie will let the audience know that the extent to which Kinsey�s �scientific research� has been discredited.

The film, however, isn�t likely to be a complete whitewash of the controversial scientist. "I think if you're unsympathetic to Kinsey," says Bill Condon, the film's writer and director, "there's plenty, lots in the movie that would support that point of view." Indeed, it would be difficult to tell the story of the bisexual, sadomasochistic, wife-swapper who circumcised himself with a pocketknife and make him completely sympathetic.

Still, I doubt that the movie will explore the depths in which Kinsey encouraged, and perhaps even participated in, the sexual abuse of children.

[Note: This is part two of a review of Michael Moore�s Fahrenheit 9/11 and Dick Morris� FahrenHYPE 9/11]

When FahrenHYPE 9/11 opens with a clip of Michael Moore saying �There is no terrorist threat" you quickly realize that this film isn�t just in a different category than Moore�s movie: it�s in a whole different reality.

HYPE was rushed out on DVD on the same day that Moore�s film hit video stores in order to provide a counterbalance to the box office sensation. Dueling political documentaries is quickly developing into its own genre this election year. But HYPE is not the right-wing-hit-piece-with-sub-PBS-production-values that you might expect. In fact, compared to F911, HYPE is a superior piece of filmmaking in almost every way. While Moore�s movie is poorly structured and ploddingly paced, HYPE is tight and to the point. That point � that Moore is a lying propagandist -- is driven home by a large collection of evidence provided by a bipartisan cadre of talking heads.

The two primary narrators are Dick Morris, former advisor to Bill Clinton, and actor Ron Silver, a lifelong �Truman Democrat� who broke ranks with his party over the war on terrorism. They�re joined by other Democrats such as former NYC mayor Ed Koch and Georgia Senator Zell Miller and by such Republican luminaries as speechwriter David Frum and right wing attack dog Ann Coulter. Such inclusiveness against a common enemy was short-lived after 11 September 2001 but Moore appears to bring them back together against a new, larger target.

[Note: This is the first part of a review of Michael Moore�s film Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Dick Morris� counter-documentary FarenHYPE 9/11.]

As a conservative, a Marine, and a fellow-traveler of the GOP, I have a natural bias against any work presented by Michael Moore. How could I honestly review such a movie without letting my innate prejudice get in the way? To answer that question I turned to my favorite movie reviewer, Roger Ebert. I found the answer in his review of the 1997 raunchy sex comedy, �Booty Call�:

To evaluate this movie, I find myself falling back on my timetested generic approach. First, I determine what the movie is trying to do, and what it promises its audiences they will see. Then, I evaluate how successful it is, and whether audiences will indeed see the movie they've been promised and enjoy it.

"Booty Call'' is being advertised as a raucous exercise in vulgarity. It is. I laughed. So I must, to be honest and consistent, rate it accordingly--three stars. In an era when so many movies have no taste at all, a movie in bad taste is at least sailing under its true colors.

In following Ebert�s approach, I turned to Moore�s own website for aid in determining �what the movie is trying to do�:

Sean Thomas emailed me and asked an excellent question:

I wonder if there is a way to find out if any one single person has made as much money off of 9/11 and the war in Iraq as Michael Moore has?

So far Fahrenheit 9/11 has grossed over $100 million. While I'm not sure how much Moore will earn from the film, his take has to be rather substantial. Could he be the single biggest profiteer of that tragedy?

In honor of his newly released film, I thought I should write something about the illustrious filmmaker Michael Moore. Too many people have already lauded the merits of his documentary, though, so I�ve decided to take a different approach. Instead of adding one more rave review to the pile I�ve decided to collect some of the thoughts from the mind of this brilliant American polemicist.

Moore has been giving interviews since the release of his first film (Roger and Me) in 1989, so I was able to find a significant amount of material from which to cull his sharp insights. I believe that, like me, you will gain a deeper appreciation for this illustrious artist after reading Moore's sage views:

I�m a sucker for movies, lists, and religious discussions. So when I heard that Arts & Faith had put out their list of Top100 Spiritually Significant Films, my interest was naturally piqued.

After seeing the list, though, I was left with a vague sense of disappointment. While there are many worthy inclusions, overall the list feels rather sparse and banal. Maybe that is an inevitable result of the list being compiled by popular vote. Or perhaps its due to the short time film has been an art form as compared to other mediums, such as literature. Then again it could be that I haven�t seen enough of the films listed (I�ve only seen 44 of the 100). Whatever its shortcomings, the compilation does serve the primary purpose of such listmaking: to offer an abundance of material for debate. In that regard, the effort is a complete sucess.

Included amidst such spiritual gems as The Apostle and Ponette are ho-hum entries like Fearless and Secrets and Lies. As soon as you begin to wonder what the voters could have been thinking, you find they've snuck in a few minor masterpieces (Groundhog Day, Unforgiven) that might have otherwise been overlooked. But just as soon as they regain my confidence I have to question how they could include Lars von Trier�s �Dogville but not his hauntingly beautiful Dancer in the Dark. And what about...well, you get the idea.

Listed below are the hundred titles that were included (the ones I�ve seen are highlighted in bold). Beside the entries I�ve added a rating of one to four asterisks. The scale is not a measure of the movies overall quality but on what I would deem its �spiritual significance�:

Now that the hype and controversy over 'The Passion" has settled and the film has become the 8th top grossing movie of all time, it seems fitting to finally ask the question that has been bubbling beneath the surface since it was first released: Is 'The Passion" a great film?

Almost every Christian who has seen Mel Gibson’s work will agree that on many levels the movie was effective. But what about when judged on it aesthetic criteria? Would a fair appraisal determine that Gibson had created a work of greatness? The question is ripe for examination and the boys at Infinite Monkeys should be commended for being one of the few to address it head on. On their blog they’re carrying on an interesting dialogue amongst themselves in which they examine that question.

My own take is that the movie was a viscerally powerful and emotionally draining work. The movie works as a form of propaganda (and I mean that in the best sense of the word) but it never reaches, in my opinion, the level of a great work of art. While watching 'The Passion" I felt a sense of detachment even as I was being emotionally pummeled by the images on the screen. Within days after leaving the theater the effect had faded away. Weeks afterward I realized, to my dismay, that the controversy and discussion the film had sparked had a more lasting impact on me than had the film itself.

One of the most underrated books about one of the most underrated art forms is Scott McCloud’s 'Understanding Comics." Behind the seemingly mundane medium of comics lies a fascinating art form and McCloud provides an excellent explanation for how visual imagery and symbolism create communicate in sequential art. While the book provides many concepts that could be transferred to the realm of film, one of its most illuminating explanations is the role of representation and symbolism.

In his book, McCloud provides a map of visual iconography (i.e., pictures, words, symbols) that he calls the Big Triangle. On one end of the triangles base lies a spectrum of images that spans from visual resemblance (e.g., photography and realistic painting) to iconic abstraction (e.g., cartoons). The closer the visual representation comes to the level of iconic abstraction the more the observer is able to use their imagination to 'fill in the details" and allow themselves to identify with the image. Visual resemblance narrows the level of identification while iconic abstractions broadens it. Think, for example, which smile is more representative of a particular emotion: the complex smirk on the face of the Mona Lisa or the simple curve of the 'Have a Nice Day" face?

This notion of identification is useful for understanding the core problem with sexual imagery in cinema. As images become more graphic or visually iconic the viewer becomes less able to directly identify with the characters involved. On the most extreme end of the spectrum, the purely p*rnographic movie, the concept of identification borders on the absurd. No one who watches such a film can 'identify" with the characters since they have been reduced to mere objects.

When Bernardo Bertolucci's 'Last Tango in Paris" debuted in 1972, legendary film critic Pauline Kael called the film "a landmark in movie history," and praised it as the most powerfully erotic and liberating film ever made. The plot -- a middle-age American widower (Marlon Brando) grieving his wife’s death has brutal, anonymous sex with an enigmatic French ingenue -- provides a thin gruel for Kael’s 3000-word stew of overheated superlatives. But in the early-’70s the sexual revolution was still in full swing and the X-rated film went on to gross $36 million in the U.S.

But the times have definitely changed. Early this year Bertolluci’ released 'The Dreamers", an NC-17 rated (the new politically correct designation for X-rated 'art" films) movie about sexual liberation in the late ‘60s. All the elements necessary for a repeat hit were in place -- full frontal nudity, sexually obsessed teens -- but an essential element was missing: the audience. The Dreamers collected just over $2 million before disappearing from American theaters.

Bertolluci, like many other directors and producers, is learning that sex no longer sells. A recent study finds that films without sex scenes earned an average of $41.1 million, while films with sex have grossed 38 per cent less with an average of $16.7 million. According to analysis by the Christian Film and Television Commission:

William O'Rourke, a University of Notre Dame professor of English and columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times has some peculiar opinons about Gibson's "The Passion":

Personally, I think the film is a hymn to Mohamed Atta and his 18 ''martyred'' brothers of the 9/11 hijacking attacks. The problem with ''Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother'' is that it fits too many religions, especially if they are built around a cult of life sacrifice in order to bring about their version of the greater good.

This sort of nonsense is, naturally, ripe for fisking. Fortunately, Bill Hobbs is already on the job.

Movie theaters in France are refusing to show The Passion for fear that it will inspire anti-Semitism:

From Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times:

The movie's message, as Jesus says, is that you must love not only those who love you, but more importantly those who hate you.

So presumably you should come out of the theater suffused with charity toward your fellow man.

But this is a Mel Gibson film, so you come out wanting to kick somebody's teeth in.

In "Braveheart" and "The Patriot," his other emotionally manipulative historical epics, you came out wanting to swing an ax into the skull of the nearest Englishman. Here, you want to kick in some Jewish and Roman teeth. And since the Romans have melted into history . . .

As Donald Sensing says, 'This woman needs some serious therapy. Quickly.”

Personally, I think she had that line written long before the move came out. She must have been chomping at the bit waiting for an opportunity to use it. Dowd has never been one to let the truth get in the way of her opinion. Gibson could have remade 'Jesus Christ, Superstar” and Dowd would have still claimed that the movie inspired violence.

Normally, when forced to make a choice between a person being ignorant or being dishonest, I go with ignorance. Since there's nothing malicious about being unaware of certain facts, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. That's what I've tried to do when reading the reviews about the Passion being anti-Semitic.

The problem is that I'm forced to believe that highly educated adults are less knowledgeable about the Bible than the average 12 year-old Sunday School student. If I were to ask most young church goers who condemned Jesus to death they wouldn't answer 'the Jews” but rather 'the Sanhedrin.” I'm not sure how the reviewers missed this point since many of those who claim that the movie is anti-Semitic have used the vilification of the high priest Caiaphas, head of the Sanhedrin, to make their point.

No doubt the high priest is singled out in the film just as he is in the Gospels. But the problem is that while Caiaphas is a Jew, he is also the head of a religious/political group. The point of the story is not that Caiaphas the Jew condemned Christ but that Caiaphas the high priest did. His importance lies in his leadership role, not in his ethnicity. I have to assume that the critics are simply unaware of this fact. Otherwise we would have to assume that any criticism of Jewish government leaders is considered anti-Semitic. I'm not sure they would follow where their logic leads them, though, or they would find that this standard would also squelch any criticism of Ariel Sharon.

Update: Kevin Holtsberry has more thoughts on the claims of anti-semitism.

In Hollywood, money has a way of erasing people's memory. Last week, Entertainment Weekly was wondering if Mel Gibson's 'controversial” movie would kill his career. Now that he has brought in $26 million on the first day the studios will no doubt start taking his calls again. So what does Gibson plan next?:

As for what he'll do after resting a while in his hammock, Gibson hinted there were myriad other stories in the Bible that deserve celluloid treatment.

"There are good stories in that book --- it's worth looking into them."

Of course, turning Bible stories into movies is as old as the cinema. But Gibson may not only be able to bring a new level of quality and authenticity to such films but he might be persuaded to take on some of the more neglected stories. Most movies from the Bible either come from the Old Testament or the Gospels. While those are always areas, what about the other New Testament stories.

What about a film based on Acts? There's enough material in that single book to satisfy even the most sequel crazed studio head. Shipwrecks, imprisonment, travel, intrigue. What more could you ask for?

C'mon Mel, we've done our part to make your movie a success. Now do us a small favor. Make your next masterpiece a film about the Apostles.

Josh Claybourn is surprised by the fact that some people in the entertainment industry are surprised that Mel Gibson's Passion "is now poised to become this year's first surprise hit." As Claybourn says, �Surprise?!? Any entertainment pundit that honestly thought this movie would not be a hit needs to seriously reconsider their line of work.�

I agree. There hasn�t been a well-made film about Christianity in decades. Evangelicals and Catholics now comprise a large section of the movie-going audience and they've waited a long time for a film that takes the faith seriously. I expect the opening weekend grosses to be between $18-20 million with a total domestic gross of $60-75 million.

More importantly, though, I think it will be the all-time best-selling drama on DVD, easily surpassing Seabiscuit. By Christmas, every fundie in the country will have a copy.

I’ve never been a big fan of sci-fi novels. So if it weren’t for the Marine Corps Professional Reading list I would have missed out on one of the best books in the genre -- Ender’s Game. The story is ideal for film but but after seeing Starship Troopers (another MC Reading List entry) ruined by a misguided screenplay, I thought maybe it would be better to leave it alone.

Fortunately, not everyone shares my wariness. The Hugo-award winning book and it’s sequel, Speaker for the Dead, will be made into a movie by the screenwriters of X2 and director Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot, The Perfect Storm). It‘s encouraging to see such talent associated with this project. This could turn out to be good news for geeks after all.

(Hat tip: Not So Fast)

When Salon.com wanted a review of Mel Gibson�s �The Passion� they could have turned to someone Mark Roberts or Hugh Hewitt. But then, those gentlemen might have given it a positive review and we really couldn�t have that, now could we?

Instead, Salon spoke to the Rev. Mark Stanger, canon precentor and associate pastor of San Francisco's �premier mainstream Episcopalian church�, Grace Cathedral. Rev. Stanger was able to attend a pre-screening of the film in Barrington, Ill that was hosted by Mel Gibson.
What did Rev. Stanger think? Well, not only did he find it offensive to Jews but he thought was offensive to Arabs as well. Christians, however, came off the worst.

Rather than give it a proper fisking (which is more than it deserves) I decided simply to provide commentary on the interview of the review :

"If you are a 12-year-old girl or boy,� says Quentin Tarantino, �you must go and see 'Kill Bill.'�

Since the movie contains approximately 132 sword related deaths, most parents might be disinclined to agree. (Though if you substitute �jawbone of an ass� for �samurai sword� you practically have a Sunday School story.)

Most Christians won't be taking their children to see Kill Bill. Most Christians, for that matter, probably won't see it themselves. But no one should dismiss this young director too quickly. For obscured by the po-mo dialogue and the piles of severed limbs hides a simple truth: Tarantino is America�s most moralistic director.