Hail Caesar! & Risen: A Review

Two new films (Risen and Hail Caesar!) on the surface, seem entirely unrelated. Risen focuses on the immediate days after the resurrection of Jesus. While Hail Caesar! takes a turn at trouncing 1950's Hollywood.

But, if you take a look at the one of the main characters from each film, you'll find a very interesting comparison.

Eddie Mannix (played by Josh Brolin) is busy keeping Capital Studios running like a well oiled machine. He's always juggling mishaps on multiple shooting sets. Among them is a film that chronicles a Roman Centurion's response to meeting Jesus face-to-face. (The Centurion is played by George Clooney.)

There's a pivotal scene in Hail Caesar! where the Centurion is in the middle of a desert with his troops. You can feel his throat parching up. Along the road stands Jesus, offering water. Eye contact is established and the Centurion is left intrigued.

Meanwhile, Eddie is back in a Capital Studio's conference room surrounded by a bunch of religious leaders (among them Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Muslim). He's asking them what they think of the gospel epic-in-the-making. Do they find anything offensive to their spiritual beliefs?

Cut to the crucifixion scene and an emotionally impacted Centurion is giving a heart-felt speech, looking up at Jesus (who is off screen). The speech goes on and for a few minutes, I actually thought it would culminate in the Centurion echoing what's in the Bible (to the effect of "Surely this was the Son of God.")

No such luck.

This is the Coen Brothers, not Matthew 27:54. They've slipped us a cinematic fast-one.

There is no tear slowly winding its way down the Centurion's cheek. Instead he fumbles his line, letting a profanity slip out.

The Centurion's scenes with Jesus, combined with Mannix's conference room quizzing leave a firm impression of 1950's religion. According to Hail Caesar! it was mostly a side issue, not meant to stir up controversy or thought. Being just one of many challenges that Mannix was juggling at any moment at Capital Studios. (Sidenote: Mannix appears to be a Catholic in good standing with almost daily trips to the confessional.)

Matters of faith aside, I found Hail Caesar! to be entertaining.

It does a great job of depicting the inner workings of 1950's Hollywood. In particular Josh Brolin's handling of Eddie Mannix was right on the money. The film revolves around him and his performance holds it up nicely.

On the other hand, we have Clavius (played by Joseph Fiennes) in Risen.

Clavius is a Military Tribune who arrives in Jerusalem on the day of Jesus' crucifixion. Pilate, at the urging of Caiaphas the High Priest, assigns him the task of guarding Jesus' body. Pilate wants to make sure Jesus' followers don't stage a fake resurrection.

So Clavius has the tomb entrance covered with a mammoth rock, has it sealed and picks two guards to camp out overnight.

The rest of Risen is a fictional depiction of Clavius' encounter with the apostles and then Jesus Himself.

During the course of the film, Clavius, unlike that of the Centurion in Hail Caesar!, actually has an encounter with Jesus that changes his life.

I have to admit during the opening minutes I rolled my eyes at what appeared to be yet another Hollywood film that had Romans and practically everyone else except Jesus talking with British accents. The saving grace was that Jesus (played by Cliff Curtis) actually looked like he was from the Middle East.

But as Clavius' journey unfolded, I was grateful for a fresh perspective on the Resurrection story to include a Roman who was affected by what he saw on Calvary.

Two different films. Two different ways of handling the subject of faith. With two different results.

Both films are worth seeing,

Watch the trailers: Hail Caesar!  Risen

Photo credits:
www.businessdirect.com (Hail Caesar!)
www.comingsoon.net (Risen)

Thoughts from Kalamazoo: What living with mass murder feels like

Kalamazoo, Michigan recently became the latest site of a killing spree in the United States.

It's also where I live.

In fact, the person who wound up killing six people and injuring another two began his acts of violence about a ten minute car ride from my home.

So it was personal.

There have been others who have commented on the factors that cause such horrendous things to happen. But I'd like to focus on how living so close to the source makes a person feel.

You become stunned.

To begin with, I found out about the killings in church on Sunday morning, the day after. (The shootings took place during a time span between 6 pm and 10 on a Saturday evening.)

I was standing at the front door of my home church, chatting with one of the persons assigned to greet folks as they came into the building. At one point in our conversation, he asked me, "Did you hear about what happened at the Cracker Barrel last night?" (The Cracker Barrel restaurant was one of the shooting scenes.)

He told me and I became instantly stunned. There was a part of me that couldn't believe such a thing could happen in my town. Maybe being in a state of shock is a normal response when what you thought could never happen actually does.

You become afraid.

Later that afternoon, I went for a walk around a neighborhood park. 

I'm in the habit of doing this every day. I look forward to it,  but it's not something I think about much, if at all.

But this time, as soon as I got out of my car, I did.

What if, for some strange reason, someone was driving their car around the park, saw me, had a gun, and decided to shoot?

So the thought that I might not actually finish my walk entered my head.

You become fatalistic. 

As I started out on the walk, fear quickly gave way to fatalism. I'm not looking for ways to die; but on the other hand, I wasn't going to quit exercising because of what might happen.

There was a bit of sheer stubbornness in the mix as well. 

You become sad.

Centerpoint Church, a fairly large congregation in suburban Kalamazoo, opened its doors for a prayer vigil for the victims and their families Sunday evening. (If you want to see what sad people look like, take a look.)

The service included worship songs and times of group prayer. And it was a time to openly express yet another feeling.

You grieve.

You grieve because something unexpectedly horrible happened to innocent individuals and their families. 

You grieve because it happened in the town you call home. 

You grieve because your sense of security has been shattered and redefined. 

You grieve because your definition of normal has been thrown out the window.

But that's not the end of it.

You can choose hope.

It sounds almost ludicrous to mention this.

How can anyone go through something so awful and find hope?

The best way I can answer this is to mention that hope is a choice as much as a feeling.

At the end of the day, I choose it.

Photo credit: www.dioceseofhamilton.com (top photo)

Brittany Geeson for the New York Times (second photo)

Laughter: It's the best medicine!

I hadn't been able to laugh since early November (2015) because of a viral infection.

Until last week. Here's what happened.

I was watching an episode of [SCRUBS] on Netflix, and Dr. Kelso (who has said this multiple times) turned to Dr. Cox (his nemesis). Dr. Cox had just laid one of his famous rapid-fire rants at him, and Dr. Kelso, without changing expression, said: "What has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap?"

Without waiting for Dr. Cox to answer, he pointed towards himself and said, "Bob Kelso." Here's the clip.

I laughed out loud. So loud that I startled Buddy (one of my cats) because he hadn't heard me laugh in four months. (Sorry Buddy!)

Laughing is second nature. In fact, until the virus that attacked my sinuses hit town, there weren't very many days that I didn't laugh. At least once. And very loud.

So ever since the break in the laugh drought, I've been thinking of how wonderful it is to laugh. The way it makes a person feel. The release it brings. The pure joy of it.

I'm not the most social animal on the planet, but yet, I tend to gravitate towards laughter. If I walk into a room and someone's laughing, (as long as it isn't laughter at someone else's expense) I want to be part of it.

Speaking of laughing in a group situation. Here's a few minute's worth of the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup, featuring Groucho Marx.

And one minute from Horse Feathers.

And here's something from Laurel and Hardy.

If you are a fan of Snoopy, you'll love this one: Snoopy at the Library with Woodstock.

How does all that make you feel? Better, I hope!

Before going any further, considering our subject matter, we need to include Carol Burnett who was the first female to have her own comedy-variety show on television and has helped make people laugh for decades.

Carol loved to interact with her audience. Here's a clip.

So let's take a few seconds to finish up our discussion of the benefits of laughter. Here are a few:

lowers your blood pressure
puts a smile on your face
helps you appreciate the ironies of life
pulls you up when you're feeling down
gives you courage (sometimes)
helps you make friends (you'd be surprised)
refreshes your soul
and it's Biblical (a cheerful heart is good medicine Prov. 17.22)

Finally, to leave you smiling, here's a clip of Amy Poehler on the Ellen DeGeneres Show.

Thanks for sharing a laugh!

Photo Credit: www.stylepinner.com
Photo Credit: www.meredy.com

The Purpose of Lent

Historically Lent has been seen as a time of penance. Of preparation. Of pressing into the heart of relationship with God and God's work of reconciliation.

Growing up, I attended a parochial school. I was encouraged to look at Lent as a time of giving up something. Like giving up meat on Friday in recognition of the significance of Good Friday (the day that Jesus died on the cross).

Practically speaking that meant having fish sticks in the school cafeteria on Friday, followed by more fish sticks or tuna fish at home for supper. Each Friday for five weeks. (I also gave up candy, including chocolate, which for a young kid, was a significant undertaking.)

It wasn't until I was an altar boy that I finally gave a good look at the 14 Stations of the Cross that ran along the perimeter walls of our church. The stations were artistic depictions of the suffering and death of Jesus. The Stations begin with Jesus being condemned to death, and continue on to Jesus being laid in the tomb.

In between these events, Jesus carries his cross, meets his mom along the way to Calvary, falls three times, gets stripped of his clothes, is nailed to the cross and dies.

It's pretty gruesome.

The Stations of the Cross are focused on the passion and death of Jesus, so they stop short of the Resurrection, ending with Jesus being placed in the tomb.

The stopping short is on purpose.

It's supposed to make a person think about what God's Son suffered for us. The price that was paid for our relationship with God to be reconciled.

It turns out, the price was enormous.

Jesus put it best when He said: "Greater love has no one that this, than to lay down one's life for their friends." (John 15:13).

It would be just like John (the one who laid his head on Jesus' chest during the Last Supper) to point this out.

So during this Lenten season, maybe one take-away can be a deeper appreciation for the kind of love that Jesus showed us. Along with a comprehension of the fact that God's Son did this with no strings attached. That is, God's Son freely gave his life without any reciprocal agreement from us. Paul points out that Jesus died for us while we were still sinners. (Romans 5.8)

This is an extraordinarily proactive, unconditional type of love.

There seems to be a trend nowadays, at least in North America, for Christians to gravitate to seeker-friendly, feel-good churches. Or churches that preach that the Good News is more like an open-ended bank account with God being the Head Teller who offers unlimited withdrawals. With no understanding and little attention paid to the price that God's Son paid for us.

In the short term, this type of Christianity has a tendency to produce very self-centered followers who aren't focused on much else besides their own well being. This is the total opposite of what following God's Son means, if you use the Bible and Jesus' own life, as the standard.

Ironically, this type of Christianity is 180 degrees removed from the example of God's Son who gave us a new commandment, which is simply, "love one another." (John 15.12)

Maybe this Lenten season we can make a commitment to get back to the roots of our faith: The cross, the Resurrection and what power there is to be had on the other side of suffering.

Photo Credit: www.patheos.com

Failure and what it isn't

Our Western culture places a premium on success.

Success being defined as coming in first, as in monetary gain or public appeal.

In the interest of helping provide some clarification on the subject, let's take a look at five things that failure isn't.

Failure isn't the opposite of success.

If success means to achieve a goal, then failure isn't the reverse of that.

The corporate-business world may define failure this way. But not reaching an intended result can also be part of a learning process that ultimately achieves something bigger.

Failure on the first attempt doesn't rule out eventual success.

God's Son set the perfect example for this. At first glance, Jesus' ministry seemed like a total failure. He alienated the religious powers-that-be. These leaders ultimately worked with the political power-holders of the time to have him crucified. As if that weren't enough, God's Son suffered a very public, painful and humiliating death by being crucified.

After Good Friday (the day of the crucifixion) the apostles, a select group Jesus had nurtured for three years, went into hiding in fear and confusion. They didn't have a clue as to what was going to happen next and it didn't feel like any sort of revival was going to happen anytime soon.

Not meeting a goal isn't necessarily a failure.

In the business world companies set goals. These goals are meant to encourage workers to produce more goods and services. But what happens when quality, integrity and honesty are sacrificed in the rush to make a profit (in order to be considered successful)?

There have been many industries (i.e. automotive, financial and real estate to name a few) that have suffered greatly because of a short-sighted focus on the "bottom line."

If winning means beating the competition, maybe we need to redefine winning.

During the settling of the United States, the application of the principle of Manifest Destiny caused great harm, even though it had widespread appeal. Native Americans and other groups were literally pushed out of the way in a greedy desire to grab as much profit as possible. Lands were snatched up with no thought of compensation. 

At the time it was considered doing business as usual. Was that really success?

Much harm has been done by God-fearing folk who fear being seen as failures.

There's a saying that history is written by the winners. With 'winners' being defined as those who beat the competition. Maybe we need to take a second look at history through the eyes of those who were trampled upon and never made it to the finish line.

There are tremendous emotional, psychological and physiological costs from defining success only in terms of material gain. 

Am I saying we should toss all goals out the window? No. Am I saying that making a profit is an inherently bad thing? No.

But the motivation behind goal-making is important. As well as how profits are actually made.

Here's a final thought. After spending about a month hiding in the Upper Room, a small group of Jesus' followers opened the door and began spreading the Good News. When they did, this group eventually changed the world. Starting from a position of being seen as total failures.

What do you think? I'm curious to hear from you!

Photo Credit: www.bolywelch.com