Check out the new trailer for Disney’s upcoming live-action adaptation of The Jungle Book.
Last night I attended the premiere screening of M. Night Shyamalan’s The Visit. Today, John and I sat down (at our keyboards) for a spoiler-free interview on my gut reaction to the film. I’ll be writing a more thorough review for Reel World Theology soon, so stay tuned over there for further developments.
John Perritt: First off, what’s your favorite Shyamalan film?
Blaine Grimes: I’m really terrible at naming my favorite films, but I’m gonna have to go with Unbreakable. It’s a really smart take on the superhero movie.
JP: What’s your initial impression of The Visit? What did you like? What did you hate?
BG: I really disliked The Visit. I think it is definitely one of his weaker films, which is sad; I really wanted it to be good. There are a couple of elements that work really well in the film, though. First, Ed Oxenbould is fantastic. His character is hilarious, and the film’s best moments happen when he is on screen. Second, there are parts of this film that are genuinely spooky, but it’s really difficult to talk about those without spoiling. So I’ll leave it there for now.
I think the main problem with The Visit is that it doesn’t know what it wants to be. It tries to be a comedy-horror-melodrama, but these elements never mesh together in an effective way. There are also several dangling plot devices that are quite annoying.
JP: Could you tell you were watching a Shyamalan film? Were many of his previous stylistic/thematic elements present?
BG: Well, this certainly isn’t his first terrible film; so some of his recurring issues made an appearance. For instance, I think The Visit lacks some of the Hitchcockian subtlety of his better films. On the other hand, he’s still exploring some of his favorite themes here: family, forgiveness, loss, and grief.
JP: How did it differ from his other work?
BG: The main way it differs is that I’ve never seen him intentionally play with comedy to this extent. I mean, The Happening is a hilarious movie, but it’s not intended as such. The Visit has some real laugh-out-loud moments. I also think it’s different from his previous work in that I’ve never seen one of his films that is so tonally confused (see earlier question).
JP: How would you “fix” the film?
BG: That’s a hard question to answer without giving too much away, but I’ll take a stab at it. Really, not much happens in the film. The build is lackluster, and the so-called twist isn’t much of one. I think Shyamalan is trying to play with the idea that normal, everyday life can be frightening, but the bodily humor that is so prevalent throughout the film is a hindrance as far as that goes.
JP: Do you think The Visit will help or hurt Shyamalan’s career?
BG: Well, there are two parts to my answer. In the short-term, I actually think this film will be fairly successful. I think it’ll find its target audience, and it will probably do quite well at the box office. This will likely lead to more movie deals for Shyamalan. As far as the long-term goes, that remains to be seen; but I will be very surprised if it’s looked upon favorably in the distant future.
M. Night Shyamalan returns to the big screen this week with the found-footage creeper, The Visit; and one question looms large: will The Visit resurrect Shyamalan’s once-promising career? While I suppose that only time will tell, I am—in the meantime—more curious about how Shyamalan’s latest effort will fit into his horror canon that, I contend, embodies its creator’s search for the spiritual and transcendent. Shyamalan is, after all, known for his cameos in his films. And while some chalk this up to the director’s desire to solidify his oft-spoken-of comparisons to Hitchcock (and there may be a certain degree of truth to this claim), I tend to think that there is a sense in which Shyamalan appears in his films precisely because they are already about him, a creative outpouring of his deeply personal investigation of the spiritual and metaphysical realm.
Shyamalan’s horror breakthrough came in 1999 with The Sixth Sense. His remarkable display of cinematic restraint, his refusal to immediately satiate our desires to see the spirits that haunt Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment) , made manifest his understanding of the Hitchcokian principle that what is unseen is often more terrifying than the visible. At its core, however, The Sixth Sense is a film obsessed with finding comfort in the fact that loved ones have a life after death.
Signs (2002), which masquerades as an alien-invasion flick, is all about Graham Hess’s (Mel Gibson) crisis of faith that comes about as a result of his wife’s untimely death. It grapples with issues of belief and unbelief in a markedly earnest manner that is so often missing from so-called faith-based films.
The Village (2004) is set in cultic/religious community and explores one woman’s faith and courage in the face of the Hawthornesque deception perpetrated by the town’s leaders. More recently, Shyamalan’s Wayward Pines television show (which was quite good until its disastrous final episode) carries with it an implicit critique of organized religion and a Calvinistic understanding of God. Given the religious nature of Shyamalan’s entires into the genre thus far, it seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that his latest film will revisit (pun intended) many of these themes.
On a larger scale, however, Shyamalan’s cinema shows that Horror is an intrinsically spiritual genre that reveals our deepest fears and longings. Some horror films—slasher flicks, for instance, which have often been read as a conservative reaction to the metaphysical implications of premarital sex—prefer to explore spiritual themes and motifs in a (thinly) veiled manner, while others (see It Follows) are more content to let their inherent religiosity bubble to the surface. The films of M. Night Shyamalan are, in my opinion, firmly grounded in the latter category; and Christians would do well to pay attention.
- This statement is somewhat reductionistic. I recognize that horror films are not a monolith, and my goal here isn’t to create a classification system for the genre. My aim here is to illustrate my earlier point about the spiritual nature of horror films. ↩
A large part of our goal here at Reel Thinking is to help Christians think critically about the movies they watch, and part of reaching this goal means that we like to draw your attention to helpful books and resources. To that end , I present the following interview with Joel Mayward about his new book, Jesus Goes to the Movies: The Youth Ministry Film Guide.
• Your new book is called Jesus Goes to the Movies: The Youth Ministry Film Guide. Tell us a little more about the book and what you set out to accomplish in it.
Joel Mayward: Jesus Goes to the Movies is the result of my intersecting passions for ministry, theology, and film. I wanted to create a resource to pastors, parents, youth workers, and young people that would be both accessible and theological, helping them think deeper about both movies and Jesus. Part One of the book is a theological guide for movie-watching, with chapters on how to thinking theologically about movies, understanding worldviews, and a brief history of the relationship between the church and Hollywood. Part Two offers 50 film discussion guides for using in a small group setting.
• Why is it important for youth to engage with films on a deeper level?
Joel Mayward: I think films and filmmakers are the primary stories and story-tellers of our era, and this generation of young people are inundated with a plethora of on-screen ideas. Learning how to have discernment, to think critically, and to engage with art and entertainment in ways that are healthy and wise are necessary disciplines for everyone, but particularly for teens and young adults. I’m convinced how we approach art and film is a significant part of our discipleship process, and our habits in both movie-watching and Jesus-following often mirror each other. In this book, I’m more interested in teaching young people how to think about movies and their faith, not just what movies Christians should watch or avoid.
• The subtitle of your book is, The Youth Ministry Film Guide. How do you envision your book being used outside of youth ministry circles?
Joel Mayward: Even though youth workers are the book’s primary audience, I think anyone who is interested in movies and Christian spirituality will find it to be a helpful and engaging resource. It’s accessible, funny, and thought-provoking. If you’re a parent, a teen, a college student, a pastor, or if you just like movies, this book is for you!
• How did you decide which movies to analyze in your book?
Joel Mayward: Great question! I wanted to address the films young people were already watching, as well as point them to films they should be watching, offering spiritual ideas and theological questions to both popular and less-seen films. I believe there are over 250 movies listed in the book’s index, ranging from 1920s silent films to the latest Mad Max movie, and all sorts of genres—action, comedy, horror, drama, romance, sci-fi, and (of course) teen movies. The discussion guides range from Pixar films to The Hunger Games to Babette’s Feast to The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
• How can someone get a copy of your book and find your other work?
Joel Mayward: You can find Jesus Goes to the Movies on Amazon.com or through the publisher, The Youth Cartel. I just started a new website for my film reviews and writings, Cinemayward.com, and you can follow me on Twitter: @JoelMayward or @Cinemayward.
Irrigating Deserts: How Film Transforms and Causes Us to Love Our Neighbors—Article at Christ and Pop CulturePosted: August 10, 2015 by Blaine Grimes in Uncategorized
I recently wrote an article for Christ and Pop Culture Magazine. Today, the article is out from behind its paywall, and you can read it for FREE over at the site. Here is an excerpt:
Week after week in the summertime, hordes of people crowd into their local movie theaters to catch the latest blockbuster. Families gather in the living room to escape the blistering heat and watch their favorite movie. In the cold winter months, holiday films and Oscar contenders stand in the spotlight. Indeed, the year-round frequency with which the consuming of fictive narrative films occurs marks it as an important and powerful ritual—not some banal or insignificant activity to merely pass the time or escape from the world around us; for film is a remarkably influential medium. It is admittedly easy to lose sight of this fact in the midst of our movie watching, in which it can become customary for Christians to think of films exclusively as prepackaged objects that contain redemptive themes for us to mine out and discover.
Head on over and check it it out!
Tags: The Gift
In the midst of the (well-earned) hubbub about Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and the buzz surrounding not-so-Fantastic Four, comes The Gift, a sly little film with an unassuming title that just so happens to be one of the best mystery/suspense pictures released in the past few years. It forsakes the sexiness of Gone Girl and The Guest in favor of something much more terrifying: realism. Moreover, The Gift displays a level of cinematic self-awareness and maturity that, though commendable in and of its own right, is especially remarkable given that it marks the directorial debut of Joel Edgerton (who also wrote the screenplay and stars in the film). At its core, the film is a marital drama obsessed with sins of the past.
Simon (Jason Bateman ) and Robyn (Rebecca Hall) seem like your average couple. They buy a new house, move in, and plan to start a family. One day, while making a run to a homeware store, Simon meets Gordo (Edgerton), a long-lost high school acquaintance. But the problem is that Gordo seems a little obsessed with Simon and Robyn; creepiness ensues, and the veil is lifted on the couple’s ostensibly happy marriage.
The truly delightful thing about The Gift is that it takes a highly subversive turn just as it heads for rote stalker film territory. Edgerton’s camerawork reinforces the narrative turn: he is not afraid to use jump-scares (there are some good ones) and then, a scene later, make you squirm in your seat as his camera lingers too long. In short, adrenaline junkies will have their fill.
Perhaps as much as anything else, however, The Gift is an insightful meditation on the long-term consequences of sin and wrongdoing. “The sins of the past will become your present,” the trailer says. Alas, however, is not possible to discuss this thematic consideration in much detail without spoiling, so suffice it to say that the words of the Psalmist—which I leave here as enticement—figure prominently in the film:
Behold, the wicked man conceives evil
and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies. He makes a pit, digging it out,and falls into the hole that he has made. His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends. (Psalm 7:14–16)
Hot off the heels of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Marvel is back with its second release of the year in Ant-Man. As the film’s title intimates, Ant-Man is essentially Marvel’s attempt to do a smaller film before ratcheting things back up in Captain America: Civil War. Of course, using the words Marvel and small in the same sentence is somewhat of an oxymoron—especially given its $130 million-dollar budget and Avengers-coattail-riding ad campaign (not to mention the tumultuous, widely-publicized departure of writer/director Edgar Wright). In a way, then, the publicity and buzz surrounding Ant-Man is emblematic of the irony of its seemingly contradictory aim: to embody magnitude and smallness in simultaneity. In this respect, Ant-Man speaks to the human condition in a unique way.
Striving for Smallness
Any film about a man who possesses a suit that shrinks him into the size of an ant will necessarily be smaller-scale in the obvious, thematic sense; and Marvel is keen to keep you from forgetting the fact, with numerous not-so-subtle references to the titular tiny insects scattered throughout the film. Moreover, the film’s tagline, “heroes don’t get any bigger” is there to remind you if all else fails. While Ant-Man is much more on the nose than most Marvel films, there are some genuinely impressive moments that epitomize its desire to be the smallest superhero movie ever. One of these moments takes place as an ant-sized Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) battles with his equally tiny nemesis Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) atop a Thomas The Train set. The action is filmed so that it is ostensibly as grand, epic, and world-changing as any corresponding scene in the Marvel canon, but this convention is then comedically turned on its head as a wide-angle shot shows the train set in the context of a child’s bedroom. Another, similar scene occurs as a miniature Scott Lang runs through a model-sized town while being fired upon by his life-sized enemies—the resulting effect of which smartly mimics the disaster porn sequence that is standard fare in virtually every summer blockbuster. In short, there aren’t many multi-million dollar movies that work so hard at being very, very small.
In spite of its attempts to embrace the scope and scale of its namesake, Ant-Man is an undeniably large film that wants to be seen as such. The ad campaign made that much clear when they released a series of posters that boasted of Ant-Man’s tremendous power. He doesn’t need a hammer or shield to be as cool as the kids down the block, they said. And then there’s the film itself, which goes (way) out of its way to pit Ant-Man against an Avenger, with the former emerging victorious. In other words, Ant-Man spends too much time trying to fit into the MCU (Marvel cinematic universe) and not enough being true to itself. It is one thing to formally experiment with the themes of scope and scale (see the examples from the previous section), but it is another thing entirely to continually prod the audience and tell them how awesome and epic your protagonist is and how he is totally on-par with the Hulk.
Going to the Ant
While it is easy to attribute Ant-Man’s size problem to the departure of Edgar Wright, the awkward tension actually is quite indicative of the human condition. In a very real sense, we like to feel small. We go to the Grand Canyon, gaze at the stars, watch Planet Earth, and ride rollercoasters because we are imbued by God with a sense of our smallness, our insignificance. We all bear the imago that tells us we are small for a reason. Conversely, Ant-Man shows that our desire to feel small has limits. The sublimity that often accompanies our attempts to confront our smallness is acceptable only insofar as we can control it. Marvel’s dilemma—that they want to make a movie about being small while simultaneously controlling how and when we feel ant-like—is, therefore, our dilemma. In other words, we want to visit the Grand Canyon to see that we are tiny, but we do not want to be lost at sea in order to attain to that same end. The problem for us (and for Marvel) is that we can’t have it both ways. We are tiny … but the Lord is sovereign.
Tags: Bryce Dallas Howard, Chris Pratt, Jesus Christ, Jurassic World
When I was 13-years-old I took a trip to the beach with my family. As any teenager headed for the beach, I was looking forward to a week of playing in the ocean. On one particular rainy day, however, my family was forced to come up with a ‘plan B’. That plan? Visit the local Cineplex.
Little did I know that this visit to the theater would be unlike any other. We went to see Jurassic Park – a film I knew almost nothing about and didn’t remember viewing a trailer prior to my entrance into this dark theater. As the images began to display on the silver screen and I was transported to Isla Nublar, I lost most consciousness of my being present in a movie theater. Rather, I bought into the notion that I was running for my life from raptors and a hungry T-Rex. I laughed. I screamed. I saw it again…and again.
Fast-forward to 2015 and not much has changed. Even though the visitors of Jurassic World have turned out for a new attraction, raptors and a T-Rex are still headlining this motion picture event. Just as Claire [Bryce Dallas Howard] states that attendance spikes with the release of a new attraction, little did the screenwriters know how true this would be of the newest installment in the franchise.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park  and Jurassic Park III  were colossal disappointments to the fans of this franchise, as well as critics, but the release of Jurassic World has showed us that no one was ready to leave this story. JW has absolutely shredded box-office numbers. It had the largest opening weekend of any movie ever, had the largest follow-up weekend, and reached the $450 million mark faster than any other film. The Avengers: Age of Ultron reached $450 million in 54 days, while JW reached it in 15 days…wow.
While I thoroughly enjoyed this film and think it is an almost perfect summer movie, I think it’s interesting to ponder this movie in our larger cultural context. Again, no movie has accomplished what JW has. Week-after-week it continues to gross large amounts of money and remains number one at the box-office, but why? Is it because people love dinosaurs? Probably. Is it possibly because people have more time to visit the theater in the summer? I’m sure. However, could it be that in the midst of our gender-confusing, marriage-redefining culture, America still has an audience that longs for male leadership? I think so.
One of the aspects I appreciated about JW, was that it wasn’t afraid to have a leading man. Currently, filmmakers seem to unswervingly pursue strong female leads – The Hunger Games and Divergent series, are some recent examples. While I am completely fine with strong females leads, as is God, (see Esther and Abigail as a couple of examples), I was ready to see a film that wasn’t afraid to have a man as a strong leader. I was ready to see that man portrayed as a character that was right. I was longing to see a man that wasn’t made to look like a fool for the majority of the film. I was ready for Owen [Chris Pratt].
Unless you’ve been lost at sea, you’re unfamiliar with the now-household-name Chris Pratt. Even Colin Trevorrow (Director) and Steven Spielberg (Creator/Producer of Every Movie) state that they got a little lucky in the casting of Pratt. In fact, they actually cast him prior to the release of the uber-hit, Guardians of the Galaxy. In an interview, Spielberg jests that they both looked very smart for casting Pratt, even though they – as well as America – had no clue how big Pratt would become.
I’m not exactly sure what it is, but there’s a certain likability to Pratt. Even though each character he portrays carries with it that indefinable likability, he also carries a nuance that makes each character unique. Owen makes you laugh, but he also brings a seriousness to scenes which displays he’s no one-trick pony.
As we meet him in JW, it’s obvious he can train dinosaurs, is willing to take risks to save others, likes motorcycles, and has some romantic history with Claire. Even though Claire is a strong woman, his leadership doesn’t falter under her authoritative tone. As he states, he appreciates her need to make tough decisions, but doesn’t relinquish his place of authority when it comes to being a dino-expert.
Owen proves to be a constant “everyman” throughout JW. He was right about the dangers of genetically-engineering dinosaurs. He was right that setting up play-dates with the indominus rex was, “Probably not a good idea.” He was right that going after said dinosaur with non-lethal weapons would result in death. Even when he’s being attacked by a hybrid-pterodactyl and Claire must come to his rescue, he doesn’t relinquish the lead. Owen is the leader. He’s the protector. He’s bravery encompassed. In short, he’s the hero.
In fact, he’s too strong – at least that’s what some in our culture are claiming. You see, some movie-goers may be okay with a strong male lead, just as long as the female is just as strong, or stronger. But, they are not okay with a solely strong leading man. Don’t believe me? Check out some of the blogs of feminists that are destroying JW. Quite simply, they hate it!
Maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but I think JW can serve as – somewhat – of an accurate barometer for our culture. Genders are being called into question; the creation ordinance of marriage has been redefined; but humans still long for a prince in the midst of chaos. There’s something refreshing about a man entering into a broken creation and fighting to protect those under his care. Whether it’s the chaos of humans re-engineering dinosaurs, humans attempting to redefine marriage, or humans objecting to God’s rules laid out in the garden, we long for a prince to come and make all things new.
Or, maybe I just like dinosaurs…
 All these stats are according to boxofficemojo.com. JW currently rests at approx. $514 million after a $54 million dollar weekend and third consecutive week at #1 beating new-comers, Inside Out and Ted 2.