Hey, everyone! I just wanted to say thanks to all of you for rocketing Flood Legends to #1 in Amazon's "Histriography" sales for Kindle! Even now, three days later, it's still #3 in that category! I, frankly, don't understand it, but I'm grateful for the fact that so many of you resonate with this book.
Now go and give your copy to someone who needs to read it!
Monday, October 23, 2017
Monday, October 2, 2017
No-Nonsense Movie Review: The Dark Tower
This is quite a sidestep this is for me. In a blog about Jesus, the Bible, mythology, and - on rare occasions - cooking, writing a post about a movie (a movie based on a series of sci-fi-western books written by a totally pagan author, no less) is a little out of the ordinary. It's odd; I totally get it, and if you are uninterested (maybe even confused) by it, don't feel bad. Really. But I wanted to write this review because I see a grave disservice being done to this film for one reason in particular, and this is a reason that is indicative of most of our lives in this country, especially within the Church: forming opinions, while not having any clue what we're talking about. So let's get to this review, and then take a step back and see the broader issue here.
First of all, I actually liked The Dark Tower movie. Not that it was perfect, mind you, or that it didn't deserve criticism, I just think people are criticizing the wrong things. Now going forward, I'm going to refer to several popular reviews out there, but out of fairness for the authors, I won't actually reference the reviews. However, if you feel so inclined, you can easily search reviews on The Dark Tower film and see exactly what I'm discussing. If you feel so inclined. So what are all the critics missing here?
Well, one of the key things they seem to be missing is that this film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire eight-book series. It was, instead, supposed to be the first of three movies, with two television mini-series thrown in for a little extra storytelling room. Get that? A movie trilogy, with two television mini-series. This film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire series. So when I read reviews that state (I'm paraphrasing), "I was skeptical going in, because I didn't see how they could possibly adapt this in only one movie, and it turns out I was right - this sucked!" I have to shake my head. Why? Because this person had no idea what he was talking about, and he allowed his ignorance to fuel his opinion. He went in thinking this movie was going to poorly adapt eight books, and he left the movie feeling vindicated, because it didn't. But it wasn't supposed to - that was never the plan.
One young woman went so far as to write (again, paraphrasing), "I can't help but think this would be better if they had planned other movies." Well, she's right about that, but that's because they did plan other movies. Her verdict? It didn't answer any of the questions it raised.
That's because it's not finished. That's sort of like hating The Empire Strikes Back because they didn't rescue Han at the end. No, they didn't, because there was another movie on the way. Just like the first guy, she allowed her ignorance to fuel her opinion.
Then there are the complaints that this was a very poor adaptation, because it was nothing like the books. That's because it wasn't an adaptation - it was a sequel. Okay, if you plan on reading these books and haven't, you should stop here, because I'm going to give away the ending. Okay? So if you are reading this sentence, right now, know that this is your last chance to stop.
In the end of the books, Roland begins his journey again, because the room at the top of the Tower is the Mohaine Desert. But there's a key difference: this time Roland has the Horn of the Eld. It even says at the end of the book that, with the horn, things will be different this time. Interestingly, King tweeted the following picture back in May of 2016:
Get it? The movies are sequels to the books. So when things are different, that's why. It's also cool that, during the movie, you can see the horn sticking out of Roland's satchel on more than one occasion. Why? Because this time, he has the horn, and things are different. Once more, when people complain that the movie doesn't follow the books at all, they don't know what they are talking about, chiefly because the movie is only supposed to follow the first book up to a certain point. And that brings up the last point, which is that the movie did actually follow the basic structure of the first book.
Let's break down The Gunslinger: Roland, a hardened, stoic man pursues the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, he kills the boy by letting him fall into a ravine, catches up to the Man in Black, and, at the end, believes the Man in Black to be dead.
In the movie, Roland is a hardened, stoic man in pursuit of the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, and he holds him over a ravine (but doesn't drop him this time). Roland catches up to the Man in Black and, at the end, it appears as if the Man in Black is dead.
So, overall, the basic structure is the same, with one major story change: not killing Jake. However, the possession of the horn is supposed to help Roland erase some of his mistakes from the previous iterations, one of which was allowing Jake to fall. So . . . . yeah. Now, the details are vastly different, of course, and I don't want to give the wrong impression, but the overall structure remains the same as the first book. Roland is a man of few words, the story is short and concise (the book is only 200 or so pages long), and Roland is pretty single-minded: catch the Man in Black.
I said that there are things to criticize, and there are, but all of these negative reviews are based, pretty much, on ignorance. They accuse the filmmakers of creating a character who is emotionless. He was supposed to be. They accuse the filmmakers of failing to adequately adapt eight books into one film. They weren't trying to. They accuse the filmmakers of not telling enough of the story. They weren't trying to tell the whole story. They accuse the filmmakers of not following the book enough. They weren't trying to follow the book word for word, but they did successfully tell the story. People formed their opinions about this movie without having any idea what they were talking about.
And that is the point of my (not-so-reviewy) No-Nonsense Movie Review: our culture has a bad habit of reacting to things about which we are ignorant. All of this stuff with Confederate Monuments is one example. On one hand, we have people who wish to keep them up for various reasons - some of them good, legitimate reasons - but how are these people viewed? As racist Nazis. Now for some, this is no doubt true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes these monuments should remain.
On the other hand, there are those who wish to bring them down, and have good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But how is everyone who feels that way portrayed? Depending on where you get your news, they are typically portrayed as moronic hippies who only want to erase the past. And, for some of them, that may be true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes the monuments should come down.
And then there's Christianity. How many people dismiss the Bible - and, therefore, Christianity - because they think the Bible is full of contradictions? How many of them are convinced of this, even though they've never read it? How many people reject Christ because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
How many Christians treat sinners that way, because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
See, the problem with the reviews of The Dark Tower isn't that they criticized, it's that they criticized without having any idea what they were talking about, judging the film based solely on their own fabricated standards. And this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue in our world: making incorrect judgments, falling into the assumption trap that you know everything, and your word is Law.
Jesus dealt with this quite a bit. In His time, the Pharisees excelled at making up rules for people to follow, and then judging their value as people when they failed to meet those standards. Check out what Jesus has to say:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and the One Who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the One Who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the later, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" (Matthew 23: 13-32).
Yikes. I'm not sure it's a comfortable thing, being called a "son of hell" by Jesus. Oh, wait - it isn't. See, I can talk about how easily people "out there" can be called hypocrites and liars, but I'm not innocent of those charges. I can talk about Christians who look down on "sinners," but I've been both the sinner, and the self-righteous Pharisee. My point in all of this is that incorrect judgments have been happening a very long time, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with Me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:21-24).
Did you catch that? "Make a right judgment." The reviews of The Dark Tower are silly, frivolous things, but they stand for something much more important: what we judge, and how we judge it. Maybe instead of assuming "the other guy" (whoever that may be, and whatever assumption that might entail on your part) is evil, or ignorant, or . . . whatever . . . see him as a person, first. Get to know that person, understand why she believes the way she does, hear his story, and then, instead of judging by mere appearances, make a right judgment. Even if that means changing your own mind.
Don't perpetuate this fallacy of judging without having any idea what you're talking about. For those of us who wanted to see more of The Dark Tower on the screen, we may not get the chance because of all of the horrible reviews. That person you refuse to talk to and listen to, because he thinks the monuments to Robert E. Lee should stay up? That may very well be your loss, because you are missing out on the opportunity to know a human being who has likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, loves. . . . The person who voted for Hillary, who you think is a complete moron? Talk to her, find out why. Maybe she has a valid point.
Oh, and that Christian who you believe is a brain-washed, militantly-evangelistic buffoon? Maybe, if you actually took the time to talk to him, you'd find out he actually has a pretty incredible reason for the hope he has in Jesus. Don't like his politics? Doesn't matter. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
First of all, I actually liked The Dark Tower movie. Not that it was perfect, mind you, or that it didn't deserve criticism, I just think people are criticizing the wrong things. Now going forward, I'm going to refer to several popular reviews out there, but out of fairness for the authors, I won't actually reference the reviews. However, if you feel so inclined, you can easily search reviews on The Dark Tower film and see exactly what I'm discussing. If you feel so inclined. So what are all the critics missing here?
Well, one of the key things they seem to be missing is that this film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire eight-book series. It was, instead, supposed to be the first of three movies, with two television mini-series thrown in for a little extra storytelling room. Get that? A movie trilogy, with two television mini-series. This film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire series. So when I read reviews that state (I'm paraphrasing), "I was skeptical going in, because I didn't see how they could possibly adapt this in only one movie, and it turns out I was right - this sucked!" I have to shake my head. Why? Because this person had no idea what he was talking about, and he allowed his ignorance to fuel his opinion. He went in thinking this movie was going to poorly adapt eight books, and he left the movie feeling vindicated, because it didn't. But it wasn't supposed to - that was never the plan.
One young woman went so far as to write (again, paraphrasing), "I can't help but think this would be better if they had planned other movies." Well, she's right about that, but that's because they did plan other movies. Her verdict? It didn't answer any of the questions it raised.
That's because it's not finished. That's sort of like hating The Empire Strikes Back because they didn't rescue Han at the end. No, they didn't, because there was another movie on the way. Just like the first guy, she allowed her ignorance to fuel her opinion.
Then there are the complaints that this was a very poor adaptation, because it was nothing like the books. That's because it wasn't an adaptation - it was a sequel. Okay, if you plan on reading these books and haven't, you should stop here, because I'm going to give away the ending. Okay? So if you are reading this sentence, right now, know that this is your last chance to stop.
In the end of the books, Roland begins his journey again, because the room at the top of the Tower is the Mohaine Desert. But there's a key difference: this time Roland has the Horn of the Eld. It even says at the end of the book that, with the horn, things will be different this time. Interestingly, King tweeted the following picture back in May of 2016:
Get it? The movies are sequels to the books. So when things are different, that's why. It's also cool that, during the movie, you can see the horn sticking out of Roland's satchel on more than one occasion. Why? Because this time, he has the horn, and things are different. Once more, when people complain that the movie doesn't follow the books at all, they don't know what they are talking about, chiefly because the movie is only supposed to follow the first book up to a certain point. And that brings up the last point, which is that the movie did actually follow the basic structure of the first book.
Let's break down The Gunslinger: Roland, a hardened, stoic man pursues the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, he kills the boy by letting him fall into a ravine, catches up to the Man in Black, and, at the end, believes the Man in Black to be dead.
In the movie, Roland is a hardened, stoic man in pursuit of the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, and he holds him over a ravine (but doesn't drop him this time). Roland catches up to the Man in Black and, at the end, it appears as if the Man in Black is dead.
So, overall, the basic structure is the same, with one major story change: not killing Jake. However, the possession of the horn is supposed to help Roland erase some of his mistakes from the previous iterations, one of which was allowing Jake to fall. So . . . . yeah. Now, the details are vastly different, of course, and I don't want to give the wrong impression, but the overall structure remains the same as the first book. Roland is a man of few words, the story is short and concise (the book is only 200 or so pages long), and Roland is pretty single-minded: catch the Man in Black.
I said that there are things to criticize, and there are, but all of these negative reviews are based, pretty much, on ignorance. They accuse the filmmakers of creating a character who is emotionless. He was supposed to be. They accuse the filmmakers of failing to adequately adapt eight books into one film. They weren't trying to. They accuse the filmmakers of not telling enough of the story. They weren't trying to tell the whole story. They accuse the filmmakers of not following the book enough. They weren't trying to follow the book word for word, but they did successfully tell the story. People formed their opinions about this movie without having any idea what they were talking about.
And that is the point of my (not-so-reviewy) No-Nonsense Movie Review: our culture has a bad habit of reacting to things about which we are ignorant. All of this stuff with Confederate Monuments is one example. On one hand, we have people who wish to keep them up for various reasons - some of them good, legitimate reasons - but how are these people viewed? As racist Nazis. Now for some, this is no doubt true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes these monuments should remain.
On the other hand, there are those who wish to bring them down, and have good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But how is everyone who feels that way portrayed? Depending on where you get your news, they are typically portrayed as moronic hippies who only want to erase the past. And, for some of them, that may be true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes the monuments should come down.
And then there's Christianity. How many people dismiss the Bible - and, therefore, Christianity - because they think the Bible is full of contradictions? How many of them are convinced of this, even though they've never read it? How many people reject Christ because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
How many Christians treat sinners that way, because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
See, the problem with the reviews of The Dark Tower isn't that they criticized, it's that they criticized without having any idea what they were talking about, judging the film based solely on their own fabricated standards. And this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue in our world: making incorrect judgments, falling into the assumption trap that you know everything, and your word is Law.
Jesus dealt with this quite a bit. In His time, the Pharisees excelled at making up rules for people to follow, and then judging their value as people when they failed to meet those standards. Check out what Jesus has to say:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and the One Who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the One Who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the later, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" (Matthew 23: 13-32).
Yikes. I'm not sure it's a comfortable thing, being called a "son of hell" by Jesus. Oh, wait - it isn't. See, I can talk about how easily people "out there" can be called hypocrites and liars, but I'm not innocent of those charges. I can talk about Christians who look down on "sinners," but I've been both the sinner, and the self-righteous Pharisee. My point in all of this is that incorrect judgments have been happening a very long time, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with Me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:21-24).
Did you catch that? "Make a right judgment." The reviews of The Dark Tower are silly, frivolous things, but they stand for something much more important: what we judge, and how we judge it. Maybe instead of assuming "the other guy" (whoever that may be, and whatever assumption that might entail on your part) is evil, or ignorant, or . . . whatever . . . see him as a person, first. Get to know that person, understand why she believes the way she does, hear his story, and then, instead of judging by mere appearances, make a right judgment. Even if that means changing your own mind.
Don't perpetuate this fallacy of judging without having any idea what you're talking about. For those of us who wanted to see more of The Dark Tower on the screen, we may not get the chance because of all of the horrible reviews. That person you refuse to talk to and listen to, because he thinks the monuments to Robert E. Lee should stay up? That may very well be your loss, because you are missing out on the opportunity to know a human being who has likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, loves. . . . The person who voted for Hillary, who you think is a complete moron? Talk to her, find out why. Maybe she has a valid point.
Oh, and that Christian who you believe is a brain-washed, militantly-evangelistic buffoon? Maybe, if you actually took the time to talk to him, you'd find out he actually has a pretty incredible reason for the hope he has in Jesus. Don't like his politics? Doesn't matter. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)