Noah and the Difference Between Deepening Faith and Reinforcing It

[Spoilers for Noah and The Last Temptation of Christ ahead.]

I'm a Catholic.  I went to 16 years of Catholic school.  I go to Mass every Sunday.  My kids go to a Catholic grade school.

But I have a confession to make...

I liked Noah. A lot. 

Why is this is this a confession? Because according to some, Noah is blasphemous and sinister and anti-Christian.

I am always mystified by these reactions from religious organizations and others.  If they really feel so strongly, they are stirring controversy (and publicity) for a film they are decrying. Of course, they are also holding themselves up as defenders of the faith and if that heroism gets more views, subscriptions or donations, so be it.

But I digress.  What I really want to talk about is the state of Christian filmmaking.  And frankly, it's not great.

Part of it goes back to the messaging above.  The Blind Side and Fireproof? Good. The Last Temptation of Christ? I'll just hold your reservation for this seat in hell right now.

The problem from my perspective is two fold:

• Media supports a view that films that reinforce faith are good and films that challenge and potentially deepen it are at best dangerous and problematic.
• Audiences are trained by these accounts to view movies based on what happens in them and not based on what they are about.

Christian films are generally safe, reflecting back the values that are already widely accepted.  When Fireproof's Caleb (Kirk Cameron) accepts God into his life, we know everything is going to be all right.  There's nothing to think about.  It is engineered to make you say "that's right!" by the time it reaches its inevitable conclusion.

Now, I'm not here to bash a movie like Fireproof.  I personally don't think it's a very good movie, but I also appreciate the fact that it allows people of faith to experience God in a different way.  I just wish there was a bit more open-mindedness about other films.

The Last Temptation of Christ remains amongst the most controversial films of all time in religious circles.  It shows Jesus trying to reject God.  It doesn't just talk about prostitutes, but shows them at their profession.  And it imagines a scenario in which Jesus saves himself from the cross and lives a normal life, getting married, having sex and growing old.

For Christians, Jesus is both God and human, but seeing him this human was beyond the pale.  A savior with human desires? No thank you.  Please give me the near robotic version of God's only Son I have seen in countless other films.  Even showing Christ in this way is to invite people to reject basic teachings of the Church.

But all of that focuses on what happens in the film, not what the film is about.  What the film is about is the weight of the choice Jesus makes.  In this telling, He could have decided at any point that He was done with dying for the sins of the entire world.  In another telling, He could have reigned hellfire and brimstone upon his tormentors.  The point is He is all-powerful and all-knowing, He could have decided we were not worth it at any point, but Jesus went through with it anyway.

Which is more powerful? A savior predestined to carry out God's will or one whose humanity screamed out against, but who went through with it anyway?

Noah will meet many of the same hurdles as The Last Temptation of Christ, except instead of whores and sex, it has... rock monsters.  Yes, there are large rock monsters in Noah. Okay, technically they are Watchers, fallen angels encased in earth described in the Book of Enoch, but let's just stick with rock monsters.

The rock monsters serve a thematic purpose, but what happens with them in the film is they serve as manual labor for Noah to help get the vessel built.  But the Book of Enoch isn't part of the Bible, so some Christians are freaking out.

The Watchers are an interesting part of the movie and what they represent works within the themes of Noah, but they are not what it is about.  What Darren Aronofsky successfully accomplishes here is showing the burden Noah has.

Russell Crowe's Noah lives in a world of chaos and death. He is a good man struggling to get by when he is given a simultaneously horrible and hopeful mission: to save enough animals to repopulate the world after God destroys it.

The film does a remarkable job of placing you in Noah's sandals.  Imagine you are chosen to save the world while every other human being in existence dies.  Imagine that becomes your life's mission.  What must that do to a man?

As interesting is the perspective of Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone), a descendant of Cain, creation's first murderer.  Tubal-cain fully acknowledges the existence of the Creator, but he also knows that man was made in His image.  For Tubal-cain, this means every man is like a god and can take what he wants.  Tubal-cain (and the rest of humanity) misunderstand their place in the world.

Noah ultimately fulfills his mission, but he too misinterprets God's plan, believing that Noah and his family are only supposed to save the animals and then die, taking humanity with them.  But a surprise birth shakes Noah.  He is still convinced of his righteousness and decides the child must be killed.  But when he looks at the twins, his grandchildren, he can't do it.  Love wins out.

The bottom line is if your faith is so fragile that it either needs Mel Gibson to beat up Jim Caviziel for two hours or can be onliterated by Martin Scorsese and Willem DaFoe, that is probably a stronger commentary on the strength of your convictions then it is a endorsement or indictment of a film.

By humanizing Noah and Jesus in film, it makes me think and consider what they must have gone through in their time.  And that deepens my faith.  I don't need to accept every fact that these films present to me as Gospel for the perspective they provide to make me ponder my religion in new and more meaningful ways.

And that is more valuable to me then a million Kirk Cameron vehicles ever could be.

Read More

Set Visit: The Patchwork Girl of Oz

Posted April 1 1914 6:01:02pm

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the set of The Patchwork Girl of Oz, J. Farrell MacDonald's adaptation of L. Frank Baum's novel released just last year.

Let me admit upfront that I am quite the Oz-phile so of course I jumped at the chance to see what MacDonald was up to in bringing Baum's world to life.

Upon arrival, I got to see some production designs that would blow your mind.  MacDonald and his crew are clearly going all out to bring Oz to life.  Sadly, I was not able to take any pictures here and was sworn to secrecy so you will just have to wait for the film's release to behold its awesomeness.

From there, I got to tour a couple of the sets.  Specifically, I got to see both Unc Nunkie's hut and Dr. Pipt's lab.  It was like walking into a storybook.  The painted facade of Nunkie's fireplace as well as the imaginative contraption that allows Pipt to concoct his wonderful creations are more spectacular than I could have possibly imagined. For fans of Baum's stories, you can rest assured that you are in good hands.

At the end of the day, I got to watch them film a scene.  It was a small moment with Unc Nunkie and Ojo attempting to cross a bridge while the stubborn mule named Mewel (a typical Baum flourish of a name) prevents their crossing.  The scene itself is humorous, but what really astounds is the imaginative costuming that allows Fred Woodward to play Mewel.  The actor in every way becomes a mule.  It is seamless.  I cannot wait to watch how the effect translates to the big screen.

Sadly, I only had a moment with MacDonald himself as I was leaving.  I asked him how they would carry off the effect of creating the Patchwork Girl.  He smiled and said he couldn't reveal much but that it would "blow my mind."

Earlier, we reported on some of the effects work for this film and you can find that here.  Suffice to say, Baum fans will be more than satisfied if what I saw is any indication.  And for moviegoers new to Oz? Prepare to have your mind blown.

Read More

Gertie the Dinosaur and the Future of Animation

Posted April 1, 1914 3:00:32

Earlier this year, Winsor McCay released the remarkable Gertie the Dinosaur, a painstakingly crafted two dimensional animated film that clocks in at a robust 12 minutes.

The wild success of McCay's animated dinosaur has industry insiders wondering: is this the end of one dimensional animation?

At the end of last year, animator Dan Baines released what was to be his masterpiece The Adventures of Dot & the Infinite Plane.  However, instead of accolades and box office glory, Dot was met with a tepid critical response and poor ticket sales. What went wrong?

Many point to the wider audience's reaction to two dimensional animation like How a Mosquito Operates and Little Nemo.  However, 1D films still thrived when early 2D line animation was first introduced.

Production Still: Fixed Point Follies

There are rumors that studios will be closing down their 1D animated production houses.  That would be an absolute shame to me.  Fixed Point Follies remains a formative film experience for me and I would hate to live in a world where my children did not have an opportunity to see the work of brilliant animators like Baines.

What can you do? For one, let your voice be heard.  Baines has started a foundation to support the one dimensional arts.  Details can be found here.  I will be donating and hope you can too.  There should be room for both dimensions.

Read More

Opinion: Theaters Have No Future

Posted April 1, 1914 12:00:13pm

Later this month, the Mark Strand Theater will open in New York.  The so-called movie "palace" will seat 3,000 people accommodate a full orchestra and show its features up on a stage on a massive screen.

All of which I give a hearty "thanks, but no thanks" to.

So right now, I can walk to the corner of my street walk into the nickelodeon, plop in seven cents, and boom! there's my film.  Easy. No fuss. No muss.

Now, we are getting a supposed improvement that means traveling to the city and hoping I can get a ticket for the show I want to see. Assuming that goes well, what do I win? The chance to sit behind a gentleman who talks to his companion throughout the film? And what if I'm stuck in the front of the theater? What kind of experience is that?

Who pays for this? We all do. D.W. Griffith (whose work I have enjoyed) is supposedly prepping a three hour "epic" that is already being talked about as "needing" a $2.00 ticket price to make it work.  You read that right. Two. Dollars. Who wants to pay that kind of price to sit in a theater for THREE HOURS?

Obviously, this is a film experiment doomed to failure, but it's not my money.  If you are interested, you can prepurchase tickets here. People will not change their viewing habits to accommodate new technology and the film industry needs to get that message.

Read More

Casting Rumor: Farnum for The Virginian?!

Posted at April 1, 1914 9:01:23am

Really? The Virginian? Really?

Cecil B. DeMille is starting pre-production on one of his next films and the early favorite for the role is a familiar face.

Dustin Farnum, who was just featured in DeMille's The Squaw Man in February, is apparently at the top of the short list for the lead in the upcoming adaptation of The Virginian. 

I, for one, hate this casting.  I get that DeMille wants to keep working with actors he is familiar with, but Farnum is just too much of a lightweight.  As a huge fan of Owen Wister's novel, I can say that Farnum has not demonstrated any of the gravitas necessary to carry this one off.  The Squaw Man was fine, but with a revered franchise like this? 

And if early word that the film is aiming for an almost 60 minute running time?  I really have to wonder whether DeMille is the guy to carry off this project without producing a bloated mess.

I predict a lot of controversy on Twitter over Virgin-num. There's already a petition to stop the casting which can be found here.

Hopefully the rumors are false, but I am not optimistic.

Read More

Fantastic Four Has Its Cast and It Is Fantastic

Fox is rebooting this.

After months of rumors, we finally have the cast list for director Josh Trank's Fantastic Four reboot.  They are Miles Teller as Reed Richards, Kate Mara as Sue Storm, Jamie Bell as Ben Grimm and Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm.

For years, my favorite Marvel comic book property has been The Fantastic Four.  It was better than Spiderman, better than The Avengers, better than Captain America (well, until Ed Brubaker started writing Cap). I fell in love with the team during Mark Waid's run on the comic and stuck with it through the years, even following the alternative dimension book Ultimate Fantastic Four.

There's some things to unpack in the casting that are obvious.  First, it seems clear based on the age of the actors that they are following the Ultimate team (assuming they are following anything from the comics at all).  Second, Sue and Johnny obviously will not be blood relatives (yes, Michael B. Jordan is black; everybody freak out).  Finally, Trank and the studio decided to go with actors as opposed to, you know, Jessica Alba.

All of this is for the good. All of it.


Marvel purists will hate that this isn't the traditional line up with a middle aged Reed, a maternal looking Sue, and (sigh) a white Johnny.  That last one will make for some hilarious comments on message boards as people twist themselves in knots complaining about the casting while insisting it has nothing to do with race.  Seriously, it will make for some amazing reading over the next few days.

I have one huge concern and one huge hope for the project and they both involve Joss Whedon and The Avengers.

My concern is that Fox is going to use this clearing-the-decks reboot to completely change Fantastic Four into The Avengers-Lite.  If you are a studio chief, it is the easiest, basest instinct to follow.  Make them a team of superheroes who don't get along, but have to unite for the common good.  Marvel is making gobs of money and "me, too!" is the default setting for Hollywood when they see something do well at the box office.

I pray that Fantastic Four does not go that root.  Amongst comic book properties, it is special to me.  It is a book about family.  It's a hopeful comic about exploration and adventure.  For Fox and Trank, it's an opportunity to tear up the superhero playbook and stretch a bit (pun intended).

Which brings me to my hope and that's Joss Whedon.

If you want a template for how to do a modern Fantastic Four, look at every non-Avenger's thing Whedon has done.  Buffy. Angel. Firefly. What are they about? Family.

In the case of those shows, Whedon always focused on the family we find as opposed to the one we are born with.  Blood be damned, Xander was Buffy's big brother and Giles was her dad.

The Fantastic Four reboot can explore the central theme of family without having any family relationships in it.  Johnny doesn't even have to be an adoptive brother.  He can just act like Sue's brother.  We will get it.  Audiences are smarter than they get credit for.

So the big concern comes down to the script.  They need a writer who gets the core of the Fantastic Four.  Who gets that Reed's superpower isn't stretching; it's that he's the smartest guy in the room (and not in an absent-minded way). Who writes a Sue that is both caring and fiercely protective. A Johnny who is completely reckless and utterly devoted. A Ben whose melancholy is only surpassed by his loyalty.

Give me a team of explorers who have each others' back no matter the odds, and I will follow you to the edges of the Negative Zone.

Read More

Updates from the Tundra

As I write this, my home is surrounded by a foot of snow that has been here forever a week.  I'm nestled in my basement, Philadelphia Flyers hoodie providing most of the warmth with the glow of my monitor filling out the rest.

I'm sure you've noticed things at 100 Years have been slow. Make that anemic.  Okay, completely nonexistent.  There are a number of reasons for that. In order of importance, they are:

1. Spending time with my wife and four kids,
2. Spending more time on my actual job that pays the bills, and
3. The 1930s.

For those keeping score, I am up to 1932 (about to start 1933). It's taken me *** months to get from 1930 to 1933.  There are a number of reasons for that (see number 1 and 2 above), but a lot of it comes down to the 1930s kind of sucking.  After the experimentation and the inventiveness of the 1920s, I was jazzed for what the next decade would bring. But the reality is the introduction of sound forced movie technology back a couple of steps and turned every plot into a game of how many sounds can we squeeze into this film.  It's getting better, but I have not been anticipating each movie the way I used to.

So after a couple of months of soul-searching, here is where we are:

• I definitely want/need to keep going with the website.
• I plan on expanding the site to include observations about current film news and releases. This will be a bit of whatever strikes me.  I'm never going to be a movie news site and I'm not planning on becoming a new release review location either.
• The 100 Years project will remain a core component of what I am doing.

I plan on doing a bit of a redesign (nothing drastic as I am computer illiterate) to capture my new direction. For those still following and reading, thanks for your patience.

More to come soon....

Read More