Interstellar

One of the most entertaining lectures I've been to involved a Physicist attempting to explain Einstein's theory of relativity.  It was entertaining for two reasons; the first being that few people can wrap their minds around the same things Einstein wrestled with, and the lecturer wasn't one of those people.  The other point of entertainment can best be summed up with the following quote:  "Neither of the two great pillars of modern physics — general relativity, which describes gravity as a curvature of space and time, and quantum mechanics, which governs the atomic realm — gives any account for the existence of space and time" (Merali).  Scientists painstakingly search for answers to fundamental questions, ignoring the explanation of Creation.

Let me be clear, science is extremely useful for understanding the intricacies of our universe.  Considering the relationship between space and time to be a fourth dimension is intuitive.  I believe that God is not constrained by it or any of the other three dimensions.  By that rationale I must conclude that there is a fifth dimension.  With his newest film Interstellar, Christopher Nolan takes us into this fifth dimension.  I guess ultimately I don't necessarily have a problem with there being a fifth dimension, only with how Nolan gets us there.

I wanted to seriously address the science behind this film, because I get the feeling that Interstellar will be held up as a "realistic" example in discussions about relativity and spacetime phenomena.  Nolan previously explored the complexity of human memory in one of my favorite films Memento.  In that film we saw the world in brief, disoriented segments, simulating the short term memory loss which plagued the protagonist.  Nolan is equally successful in portraying the complexity of spacetime theory through the eyes of a heroic farmer.  That's saying quite a bit, because the challenge undertaken in Interstellar is far greater than that of Memento.

It is unnecessary to comment on the film's technical merits, because they are flawless.  Upon first glance, certain sequences, such as the spinning earth or box robots may seem odd – but it's all amazingly spot-on.  The effects have been carefully designed to match the theory discussed by the characters; this is the film's strength and its weakness.  As with any work of fiction, it is important that the visuals support the dialogue to effectively tell a story.  On the other hand, if your premise is lacking, if the science is full of holes, then the matching visuals will come across as hokey.  Nolan's film doesn't become absurd due to poor filmmaking; on the contrary, it's excellent filmmaking that follows an absurd idea to its logical conclusion.

What I don't like about Nolan taking us into the fifth dimension, is the suggestion that man can achieve the position of God, without even acknowledging the existence of God.  I would suggest that certain parts of the Bible offer a view free from the constraints of time and space.  The idea that God existed before creation informs me that both time and space are elements which have origin… and I don't pretend to understand what "before time" looked like.  Nolan's exploration of these concepts without the inclusion of God may look pretty amazing, but ultimately it is an exercise in futility. 

Merali, Zeeya  Theoretical Physics: The Origins of Space and Time  Nature.com

Gone Girl (and other movies too)

I realize that it has been five months since I wrote a review about a new movie.  In that "missing time" I have seen four movies in the theater; Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Sin City 2, and Gone Girl.  I took two classes over the summer which might partly explain the decrease in movie watching, but honestly there haven't been many movies that I've wanted to see. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes struck me as an extraordinary technical achievement in filmmaking.  The techniques which were used to bring Gollum to life in The Lord of the Rings have been improved significantly.  This movie represents a milestone; human characters and their effect-generated counterparts will become indistinguishable. 

Guardians of the Galaxy fulfilled its promise of being entertaining; which is saying quite a bit these days.  In an environment oversaturated by comic book movies/television shows, this was overall a refreshing deviation from the norm.  Sure it followed well traveled clichés, but the characters and the landscape set it apart.  I will still contend that it would be difficult to make a movie starring a raccoon named Rocket that isn't entertaining.

Sin City 2 followed the amazingly crafted visual experience of Sin City with a blasé, messy, pointless jumble of a movie.  Seriously the only thing this movie does well is reaffirm the notion that sequels are unnecessary.

I went to see Gone Girl last night.  I had seen the poster, but I have avoided any other contact with promotional material.  When David Fincher makes a movie I prefer to see it uncontaminated by spoilers.  Gone Girl will be studied for years to come as an example of mastery in film editing.  Fincher weaves an elaborate mystery, revealing each new piece of information exactly when it best contributes to the overall effect.  The opening dialogue is unsettling, but doesn't quite sink-in until halfway through the film.  Or at least it seems to make sense at the halfway point, when in fact the whole movie is necessary to truly understand.  Rarely have I been so manipulated by storytelling techniques as I was last night, and it wasn't until later that I understood the extent.  As long as you don't realize that you're being manipulated in the moment, it can be a good thing (in filmmaking).  Thanks to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' contribution to this film, I also experienced one of the tensest sequences ever filmed.  The sequence I'm referring to was simply a revelation by one of the main characters, but the dialogue, the film editing and the sound design all contributed to enhance the tension.  I feel compelled to include the following statement:  As I said before, this is a David Fincher film, so no matter what qualities I mentioned previously, it's still a Fincher film.

P.S.  I saw the trailer for Clint Eastwood's newest film American Sniper.  I can only assume that Eastwood must have overseen the editing of the trailer, because it is probably the most powerful trailer that I've ever seen.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock*

Well over a year ago the kids and I began watching MacGyver, episode by episode.  Early this summer we finally finished watching the entire series including two made-for-TV movies.  We decided to begin a new series together and have begun watching Star Trek Enterprise, which to those unfamiliar with the premise, takes place chronologically before the events of the 1960's television program.  Last week we watched the newest Star Trek film Into Darkness, which led to some questions about conflicting timelines and character roles brought about by the reboot.  Since we had watched The Wrath of Khan quite a while ago, I thought that revisiting the original series, picking-up with The Search for Spock would be interesting, and answer some questions.  As the end titles rolled, and the "MCMLXXXIV" copyright appeared I began to wonder about my own Star Trek experience.  I definitely remember seeing Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in the theater with my dad; I would have been about nine years old when it was released.  I know that I saw The Wrath of Khan (which was Star Trek II) at a relatively early age, because the Earwigs still stir-up memories of fear.  But I didn't see it in the theater during its original theatrical release because I would have only been five years old, therefore I must have seen it on VHS or during some re-release.  I honestly don't know which I saw first, and I'm not sure which of the other original cast films I have ever seen.  Add to that a very spotty viewing record of the original television series; I know that I haven't seen more than half the episodes, and surely they have been out of order.  My grasp of the Star Trek canon is extremely limited, now that I stop and think about it.  That being said, I am perfectly content with my knowledge of the subject, and I enjoy exploring new episodes and films with my children.  I am intrigued by the concept that their experience is similarly jumbled as mine, yet significantly different as well.  I hope that years from now they can share Star Trek with their children too --  that is if the can overcome the "nerd" stereotype as I have.

*My review of Star Trek III:  The Search for Spock is simply this:  Couldn't they have named it something else, allowing for some element of surprise when Spock is discovered?...  oh I'm sorry, I should have said "Spoiler Alert!"

Captain America 2 and Agents of Shield

     The kids and I have been watching Agents of Shield each Wednesday night (we DVR it while I'm at work on Tuesday).  When I first heard of an Avengers television show which featured absolutely no super-heroes, I had my doubts.  To my surprise, the series has much in common with the best Marvel movies, specifically dynamic characters.  Agents of Shield reminds me of the television I watched when I was a kid, when writers weren't above including positive messages and inspirational characters on the little screen.  I appreciate shows like Sherlock and Breaking Bad that have broken the barriers between television and film.  Typically I prefer television that reflects effort on the part of its creators instead of the in-between-commercials-filler which makes up 98% of TV today. While Agents of Shield is definitely a marketing ploy, it is also refreshingly fun.  Shows from the 80s like G.I. Joe and Knight Rider had to be entertaining first and foremost, but because they were so intrinsically goofy, the writers attempted to redeem themselves by incorporating virtuous characters and uplifting storylines.  Perhaps I'm being naïve; it is very likely that the positive elements were included to evade FCC regulation of shows which were basically toy commercials for kids.  Regardless, I have fond memories of those shows, and Agents of Shield stirs up those good feelings.

Captain America 2 follows the same playbook that inspires its small screen cousin Agents of Shield.  The cynical worldview which enshrouds The Dark Knight series has no place in Captain America's universe.  Sure there's evil, and corruption, but Captain America's commitment to justice is not swayed by such annoyances.  I like how Cap's boy scout attitude is revered; the filmmakers don't shy away from portraying him as a true American hero.  It is a fine line to establish that allows supporting characters to point-out, and sometimes mock Cap's values, yet through his composure and integrity he retains the audience's admiration.  Fittingly those who derided Captain America either came full circle and were inspired by him, or they were revealed as villains.  Throw into the mix a healthy dose of criticism against the current President's reliance on drones and sweeping surveillance, and Captain America 2 is a thoroughly entertaining film.  Were there super heroes and special effects and explosions?  I think so, but I like Captain America because he was a hero before he got any super powers.

I thought it fitting to review Agents of Shield along with Captain America 2 because their plots intertwine.  Developments in the film directly impacted the very next episode of the television show (which was mid-season).  I don't think there's been such a tie-in before, and it's been fascinating to watch.

*Fascinating may have been too strong a word -- but it's more catchy than the word interesting.

God and Science

                I must have been 15 years old when I had my first clash with science.  My geology teacher explained in a matter-of-fact way that the Earth is millions of years old based on techniques which are used to age rock formations.  This timeline conflicted with my understanding; the Bible informs me that the Earth's age can be measured in thousands of years, not millions.

                Some friendly people from Northrop Grumman were recently on campus to discuss their latest joint venture with NASA, the James Webb Space Telescope.  According to one of the lead scientists working on the project, this design will allow us to see "further back in time" than any previous telescope.  She was referencing the hyper-sensitive infrared device which has been designed to capture even the faintest light.  Scientists hope to analyze this light, surmising that faint equates old light which has traveled the longest and furthest.  Since light travels in a straight line at a constant velocity (through the vacuum of space), scientists extrapolate age and distance based on specific properties of the measured light.  This technique utilizes the mathematical principle of interpolation, wherein a relatively narrow set of data is extended to explain a much broader set.  The well known radiocarbon dating method which has been used to age fossils and mineral deposits works the same way.   That method has taken 65 years of observation to age objects by a factor of millions.   Does that sound reasonable to you?

I feel that I have digressed; my intent is not to discredit any specific scientific method.  I believe that God said "let there be light", and there was light.  Scientists want a light source.  All light that has ever been observed has a source, so that means all light must have a source, right?  I believe that God didn't make the Sun until the fourth day; that's three whole days of light without a tangible source.  Am I crazy?  If God can create the Earth, then I'm satisfied that he could provide a light source for a few days in such a way that defies scientific understanding.

It takes over 8 minutes for light from the Sun to reach Earth.  It takes over 4 years for light from the next closest star to reach Earth.  The next closest galaxy is 3 million light years away.  I accept those statistics; I believe that energy, dissipated today in the form of light takes 3 million years to travel from the Andromeda Galaxy to Earth.  Yet this does not prove to me that it took 3 million years for Andromeda to become visible to Earth, or 8 minutes for light from the Sun to strike Earth the first time.  I am convinced that when God made the Sun, the leaves on the freshly formed trees benefited right away.

One of the most reassuring passages in scripture is in Matthew 6:26, "Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?"  When I look up at the stars, when I consider the vast expanse of space it makes me feel really, really small.  That God has shown me His mercy, that He cares for me means so much knowing how insignificant I am. 

If I don't accept that there was light before there was a Sun, then I would be free to disregard the rest of the Bible too.  If I cannot trust that God can keep His word intact, then how can I truly know anything about Him and what he expects of me?  My suggestion that a galaxy 3 million light years away can be visible to Earth, when both are merely thousands of years old is a stumbling block to many.  I truly wish this were not the case.  It saddens me to know that so many doubt God's sovereignty because science is such a persuasive form of peer pressure.  I find it helpful to remember that God is not asking us to take anything on faith that is untrue.  On the contrary, seeking God and seeking truth are synonymous.   What then are scientists searching for?

Academy Awards

Perhaps you've noticed a trend; my movie reviews have trickled to almost nothing.  There was a brief spurt of reviews which coincided with Christmas break, but now my attention is focused back on Newton's Second Law, linear independence, and Thévenin equivalent circuits.  Yet tonight the Academy Awards ceremony will be televised, and I'm looking forward to seeing who the winners are.  Mere minutes ago I finished watching the last of nine films nominated for Best Picture.  A few I already wrote about, so you know my opinion on American Hustle, Captain Phillips and Her already.  Instead of full-fledged reviews of the other six films, I'll simply comment briefly on each, and close with my pick for the best film this year.

Dallas Buyers Club was a sad film which reminded me of the hopeless condition so many of our fellow human beings find themselves in.  What is it that motivates a despicable, fallen man to commit acts of genuine kindness?

Gravity is a masterpiece for the senses.  Visually and aurally it didn't miss a beat.  Add to the experience a well acted performance by Sandra Bullock as a brave an ingenious woman; resulting in the most entertaining movie of the year.

Nebraska was quite boring and completely captivating at the same time.  Perhaps I couldn't believe that "this is it" the whole movie, so my anticipation for more kept me glued to the screen.

Philomena rose above its cliché storyline by allowing its two main characters to be themselves.  Judi Dench plays a woman of faith who should have lost her faith a long time ago by the world's perspective.  Steve Coogan willingly represents the world, ridiculing and questioning any who would believe God's Word.  That both characters can occupy the same film was amazing to me. * {I feel obliged to mention that there is a plot devolvement in this film which I found contradictory to my beliefs.  Obviously this is still a product of Hollywood and their ideas about sin are reflected therein}

Twelve Years A Slave is probably the most difficult of these nine films for me to review.  While it is a powerful film, its shortcomings and reliance on certain techniques leave me undecided.  My mind finds it difficult to accept that such widespread mistreatment of fellow human beings could occur as is depicted in this film.  Were plantation owners as depraved as Michael Fassbender's character is here?  I know the answer, and it disturbs me to acknowledge that where one sin has been effectively abolished, many more have taken its place.  To get back to my original train of thought; this film relies re-enacting the horrors of slavery to condemn it.  I suggest that making a film which condemns man's depravity today by drawing parallels to slavery would be a much greater achievement than what is represented in Twelve Years A Slave.  If we aren't learning anything from our past, what good is there dwelling on it?

The Wolf of Wall Street  {I actually had written a draft review for this film, so here it is}

Any movie that can make me question long-held beliefs must be doing something right.  If you listen to the leftists of the world (i.e. Al Gore) you would conclude that Capitalism is a pervasive evil that must be dismantled before it destroys us all.  On the other extreme we find Rush Limbaugh, who equates Capitalism with Godliness.  I would suggest that our country wouldn't be what it is today without Capitalism; the good and the bad.  Greedy, selfish Capitalists placed us in the unique position to save the world from Nazism and Japanese imperialism at the same time.  You might argue that it was our country's Godly foundation which led to a World War II victory.  Or you might point to the blessings of natural resources, or the motivating power of good vs. evil...  Sure, that's all true, but greedy, selfish Capitalists played an integral part. 

Now you're beginning to wonder, what has this to do with The Wolf of Wall Street?  Martin Scorsese has made a movie which should be both inspiring and totally offensive to any reasonable person.  There is no aristocracy in the United States, everyone has the opportunity to better him or her self.  Inherent with this freedom is the potential for devastating failure and degradation.  Scorsese has crafted an allegory; warning all viewers of the pitfalls associated with Capitalism.  In an early scene, Matthew McConaughey's character offers his advice on how to be a great stock broker.  He carefully plots a routine of drug and alcohol use to maximize his effectiveness; the ultimate goal is to make as much money as possible.  Health, kindness, peace, love, integrity,... none of these are even factors in his approach, only self-gratification and money.  The main character in the film, played by Leonardo DiCaprio takes this advice to heart, and the result is an empty life of excess.

I don't think that Scorsese is so hypocritical as to be criticizing success, or the competitive nature of Capitalism.  Rather, this film plays more as a warning to those who would naïvely assume that any system is run by "good" people.  We are the sheep.  The guys dominating on Wall Street are the wolves.  The most poignant moment in The Wolf of Wall Street comes during an explanation; making money for investors is unimportant to the broker, because making money for the broker is the only thing.  In a perfect world Capitalism would be wonderful; a flawless balance of supply and demand would bring peace and harmony.  In a perfect world Communism would be wonderful too... 

Where this film made me question my beliefs has to do with the infectious nature of evil.  I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish Capitalists helped win World War II, with no negative side effects.  I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish, white Capitalists settled this country (relocating and murdering along the way), with no lasting negative side effects.  I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish Capitalists can run our banks, corporations, churches, etc. with no negative side effects.  Scorsese is telling me to wake up.  That's all this film is, an exposé.  What should be done next?, well that is a really important question.

 

And the winner is…  While Gravity was the most entertaining (and the only movie I'd recommend watching), American Hustle was the best film I saw this year.  So there you have it.

Her

Is technology good or evil?
Is a hammer good or evil?

Considering that a hammer represents a technological advancement, I believe that these two questions are the same.  Cutting to the chase; I contend that technology cannot be evil, it depends completely on how man uses it.  Spike Jonze new film her strips away all the flash and glamour of technology, and focuses directly on one man's relationship with ones and zeros.   Joaquin Phoenix plays a lonely thirtysomething professional on the verge of divorce, who finds companionship with his new operating system.  While I imagine that many may find this concept far-fetched, let me suggest that Spike Jonze is addressing an issue which is far too real.  Our relationships with technology are stealing from our relationships with each other.  Yes, I recognize the irony as I type these words on a computer keyboard instead of saying them directly to you... 

Phoenix's character installs his new operating system in a way that is familiar to many of us; he waits patiently for the software to update and answers a few semi-personal questions along the way.  Then a friendly voice addresses him, striking-up a conversation.  He asks it the same questions I would have asked, and doesn't quite know how to process the answers.  It is a feminine voice that emits from the computer, so it's a her, right?  She expresses concern, interest, and even gets upset towards him.  Initially he knows that she's "just a program", but she's so well written that the illusion begins to take hold.  Before long he has fallen in love with her, and joy seems to have returned. 

I received a Japanese insulated coffee cup for my birthday just over a year ago.  This cup keeps my coffee hot all day, it's truly a technological marvel.  I know that if I were to loose it, I would truly miss it (please note that I haven't digressed to the point of calling my coffee cup "her" yet).  Where is the line?  I don't worship my coffee cup.  I'm not "in love" with my coffee cup, but I certainly hold it in high esteem. 

Is it alright to talk to Siri disrespectfully just because she is  synthetic?  Is it alright to be polite to Siri even though she's synthetic?  These are the kinds of questions which her has prompted me to ask.

I don't think that Spike Jonze set out to criticize society for utilizing technology, rather he is nudging us to examine how we use it.  I am pretty sure that Jonze and I would disagree on why this is important.  I believe that we should be looking to God; through the Bible and those who have been given wisdom, to guide our relationships.  Not to get overly semantical, but we have relationships with just about everything around us, from a hammer to a wife and everything in-between.   Obviously, if we want to get the relationships right, we're going to need a lot of help.

Inside Llewyn Davis

Inside Llewyn Davis is a genius masterpiece or a mediocre fanboy biopic; which one, only the Coen brothers will ever know.  What I like about this paradox, is that I will be able to convincingly argue either perspective depending on who I'm talking to.  Let me offer the basic premise for either argument:  Inside Llewyn Davis is a genius masterpiece because Ethan and Joel Coen were able to produce a film for hipsters, starring hipsters, about hipsters, that hipsters really, really like; yet the whole thing is an indictment of the hipster.  The counter-argument, the one that suggests that the Coens made a mediocre fanboy biopic is exactly the same as the other argument, only it leaves off "indictment".  I hope that the former is true, that'll be my explanation for liking it at least.  Obviously, based on the Coen brothers track record it is very likely that they meant this as a biting criticism, but it works the other way too, making a conclusive answer impossible.

What's inside Llewyn Davis?  Very little really; he's whiny, self-absorbed, and kind of a douche.  He has disdain for others who share his profession but aren't as good as he views himself.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that many talented artists have similar attitudes.  This wouldn't be so bad except that we must spend the entire film with Davis.  If we could just listen to his music and then go on our merry way, all would be right with the world.  His music is great, for the same reasons Bob Dylan's music is great.  Yet the moment we recognize that our emotions are being played just like his guitar, we should turn our backs on the whole farce.  In an aside, A few years back I noted that the horrible movie Troy should be remembered only for its multitude of "funeral pyre" scenes.  I think approximately 10% of screen time was devoted to this pastime.  Inside Llewyn Davis likewise must set some record for "sleeping on couches", Davis becomes an expert in the field. 

If you tell me that you really liked Inside Llewyn Davis please be prepared to explain yourself.  You can't be cool unless you like it for the right reason…

American Hustle and Silver Linings Playbook

I went to see American Hustle a few weeks back, which reminded me that I liked The Fighter (both directed by David O. Russell) thereby prompting me to rent Silver Linings Playbook (also a Russell film)...  As you will soon discover, it seems as though I saved the best for last.

American Hustle falls squarely into the "Con Man Movie" category; or perhaps it is a definitive example.  A few other films immediately come to mind; Ocean's Twelve, Heist and to some extent The Prestige.  These are all films which center around really smart people trying to trick other really smart people.  Russell doesn't reinvent the wheel, he recognizes that a story about smart people is far more captivating than some convoluted plot.  Most likely the conclusion won't surprise you, but perhaps how it's received by certain characters will.  It would be convenient to note how drastically different Christian Bale's character is here in American Hustle from the last movie I wrote about, Out of the Furnace.  Unfortunately it isn't that simple; while both characters could be contrasted based on social status, employment, style, etc., they both share certain qualities.  One of the best moments in this film comes when Bale's character is given a gift; while he accepts the item graciously, he is ill-equipped for this moment.  He is such a disingenuous person, that it stuns him when someone wants to be his friend, and give out of kindness.  While the supporting cast here is excellent; Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams, and Jeremy Renner et al., this is definitely Bale's movie.  It is fascinating to see his character's relationship to each personality he comes into contact with.  While "Best Actor" awards often go to bigger-than-life performances, I think that Bale deserves one here for his subtle nuances.

Silver Linings Playbook is like another great comedy As Good As It Gets, in that it is about someone who has a mental illness, yet not about the illness itself.  This is a wise approach, because it makes the story accessible to a wider audience; just because I don't have this specific condition doesn't mean I don't have issues of my own.  While some viewing this film inevitably will be bi-polar like the main character, it's safe to say that everyone watching will have struggled with feelings of inadequacy.  If you're not seeing your weaknesses reflected in certain film characters, and being challenged, then I'm really not sure why you keep watching.  There are much more efficient forms of entertainment that require absolutely no introspection (i.e. television).  What I said previously explains why Silver Linings Playbook is a great film; what makes it a great movie comes from how enjoyable to viewing experience was.  There are three primary characters, led by Bradley Cooper, with Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro.  All three of these characters have their own mental illness, and each has developed their own approach to coping.  Instead of being a dreary slog through daily routines of the mentally ill, this film is a joyous celebration of people, who just so happen to be ill.  While there are dark moments, while there is tragedy, the overall atmosphere is bright.  I would hate to ruin the film for any who have yet to see it, so I will delicately say only the following:  About ten minutes before the film ended I knew exactly which two outcomes were possible (there are only two) and I was concerned that it would go down a sad path.  That I really had no idea which of the two routes would be chosen only made the film that much better.

Out of the Furnace

Out of the Furnace falls into the category of "what would I do if I were in the same situation?"  When done well, this kind of movie is really thought provoking, and this film is successful.  I believe that The Road from a few years back tried to join this category, and even Zombieland would meet the requirements.  Out of the Furnace works because its characters are grounded in reality, and they face each situation accordingly.  The main question that this film asks of us, is how far would we be willing to go for a loved one?  Yet there is an added bonus question; which deals with the line between self-defense and revenge.  Both Christian Bale and Casey Affleck play their respective roles just right.  Bale is especially great in his ability to wrap quietness, honor, and intensity into one believable man.  Then there's Woody Harrelson's evil backwoods antagonist, who is anything but conventional.  What I mean, is that rarely do we see a villain who isn't explained in some basic manner; here we are forced to accept that he is both extremely evil and simply a man.  Because Out of the Furnace is about some dark questions which may lead us to uncomfortable places, it stands out as an interesting and poignant film.