I saw Bridge of Spies today (I know, I'm a little late to the party) and it is every bit as good as everyone says it is. It didn't quite knock Spotlight out of the #1 spot on my 2015 favorites list, but it's pretty damn close. Spielberg definitely hasn't lost his touch, and I'd say he's at least got a solid shot at snagging a Best Director nomination from the Academy this winter. And why shouldn't he? Bridge of Spies is absolutely beautiful. Spielberg, it seems, is at his absolute best when he's doing a period piece. (Evidence: Schindler's List. If that film doesn't make you cry, I don't know what will.) And while we're handing out kudos, my compliments to the art department. Those sets and costumes were out of this world.
But all of that wasn't why I loved the film so much. Oh, that's part of it, I'll admit, but it's not the reason. There's a lot more going on under the surface of Bridge of Spies, and I truly hope people aren't too distracted by the historically-accurate production design to see it. (Although if they were I wouldn't blame them because seriously, look at those sets.)
Before I get into why Bridge of Spies really sent chills down my spine I'll have to get into a little personal backstory. I've had a lot of ups and downs with my faith over the past eighteen months or so, going from Christian to "I want nothing to do with the church" to "okay, sure, God exists, but wtf do I do with that information?" So it's not set in stone, exactly; I'm still figuring out where I stand, religion-wise, but I do believe in God and I do love Jesus and I do pray and sing and worship, so for all intents and purposes, let's say I'm a Christian. I was raised Episcopalian and still lean that way, but I have major issues with the representatives of my religion in general, which is kind of problematic to say the least.
So basically, to put it as simply as possible:
1. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
2. I believe in Heaven and angels
3. I believe God is watching us, He loves us, and He wants to save everyone (yes, even the atheists)
4. I believe that love conquers all and that God is love (even when He seems to be mad at us)
5. I believe that there is hope for the world even now when we can't seem to stop shooting each other
...do I sound like a Christian hippie? You know, the kind that makes Adam 4D throw up in his mouth? Yeah, probably. But you get the general point.
Now, there are a lot of religious/spiritual movies out there that claim to "spread the Word" by lacing as many sappy, otherwise-bland romantic comedies and family flicks with Bible references as possible. I've seen a few of these and honestly, they made me throw up a little. Christmas Angel. What If... God's Not Dead. The Christmas Lodge. War Room. All of them so absolutely stupid and insipid that I was either bored to tears or amused at how pathetic the evangelism attempts actually were. All of them so heavy-handed that were I an atheist, I would watch these things and go "ok, let's change the channel, this is stupid." I once got into a minor argument with someone who will not be named, over whether or not The Polar Express was "preachy." I wish I could sit him down in front of Christmas Angel or War Room--I got your "preachy" right here, buddy.
So no, I'm not a fan of "Christian" media. I'm also definitely not a "Christian" filmmaker. Not like that, anyway. I doubt anything I do will be distributed by Pure Flix. (In fact, I beg you, please beat me with a stick if I ever make anything that Pure Flix is interested in. I would literally rather be Tommy Wiseau than get to that point. Seriously.) No, when I find God in the movies, I find Him in less-blatant, less-evangelistic places.
Like, say, in Bridge of Spies.
The plot doesn't sound too spiritual, really, when you look at it on paper. A Soviet spy is caught, tried, and sentenced to prison in America, while a young American spy pilot is shot down and detained in Russia and an American student is captured in East Berlin. The no-nonsense lawyer who defended the Soviet spy is selected to arrange a prisoner exchange, he goes to Berlin to negotiate, and long story short, history is made. A nice little espionage thriller. A period piece--just what Spielberg does best--served with a nice, fresh side of Disneyfied patriotism, interspersed with a lot of talk about the Lord, the Constitution, and How Great America Really Is And Don't You Dare Say Otherwise.
But oh, it's so much more than that. Early on in the film Abel, the Russian spy, tells Donovan, his lawyer, how he once witnessed a man getting beaten by soldiers. The man kept getting back up, no matter how hard the men hit him, so they eventually gave up and let him go. This man served as a role model for Abel, who remains utterly calm even in the face of the death sentence. Whenever Donovan asks him if he is worried or afraid, Abel replies "Would it help?" He refuses to cooperate and pass information to the CIA, even if it would secure his freedom. He is calm and collected no matter what the situation. He is absolutely ready to die or be hurt for his country. "I'm not afraid to die," he tells Donovan when told about the possibility of the electric chair, "even if it's not my preference." Halfway into the first act I realized, shit, I kind of want to be like this guy and he's supposed to be "the enemy." Donovan repeatedly mentions throughout the film what a "good soldier" Abel has been and constantly expresses admiration for his conduct, despite the fact that he and Abel are on opposite sides of a very tense fight.
There is a popular worship song that literally everyone who has ever been to an evangelical protestant church has heard, called "Mighty to Save." In the second verse is the line, I give my life to follow everything I believe in/Now I surrender. I couldn't help but think about that line when I saw the way Abel reacts to his capture, and the way American spy Gary Powers reacts to his capture: both men are absolutely willing to give their lives for what they wholeheartedly believe in. They will surrender to the consequences, knowing they made the right call according to their own hearts and minds. Donovan worries that Abel's associates won't believe that he didn't give up any information to the Americans, and Abel assures him that even if they don't, it will be all right because Abel himself knows that he did not betray his country. That is a damn powerful message, considering our culture's obsession with heroism. In most movies if you do the right thing and aren't rewarded with a ticker-tape parade, it's seen as a tragedy. Here, it's acknowledged that even the right actions are not always noticed and rewarded--and that's okay.
In the Bible, Jesus tells us that our reward will be greater in Heaven if we don't loudly pray on street corners, if we don't make a show of doing the "right" thing or the "holy" thing, if we don't insist on showing everyone how religious we are. His message lines right up with the one presented to us in Bridge of Spies: if you do the right thing and you know it, it doesn't matter who else knows. You know. You are able to sleep at night, knowing you did what you needed to do. And that's all the reward you need.
I felt closer to God watching Bridge of Spies than I ever have watching a blatantly "Christian" movie. And when I look at some of the other movies I love, movies that I feel a spiritual connection to in some form or other, I think I see a pattern. The movies I fall in love with don't preach or force an agenda or insist that what they're showing you is the be-all end-all. They're just there, and let you draw what inspiration, comfort, or message you can from them.
One of my former Christian fellowship friends once saw a film I'd made in high school and commented, "I'd never know you were Christian from your work." Funny thing is, one of my fellow students had teased me about the same movie, saying "your virginity pledge is showing" because the romantic leads didn't have sex in the film. It's all in the way you look at things. Someone else is going to watch What If... and, with a sigh, say as the credits roll, "What a beautiful representation of Christ and His love, I wish everyone could see that movie!" Someone else is going to watch Bridge of Spies and think, "Blah, useless romanticized patriotism." Doesn't make any difference to me, or to Spielberg for that matter.
Because he knows what meaning he put into that film. And I know what meaning I took out of it.
And at the end of the day...you guessed it...that's what really matters.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Saturday, December 5, 2015
The downward spiral of a broken media
I can't even count the number of times I've heard "Wow, you like a lot of violent movies, don't you?" Usually this is accompanied by a shocked face, or at least a raised eyebrow or two, or in a fair few cases a follow-up statement of "So why won't you watch Saw/Taken/Mad Max with me? Come on, it's not as bad as A Clockwork Orange." Okay, fair enough. Yes, I like a lot of not-so-G-rated media. Yes, A Clockwork Orange is one of my all-time favorite movies. Yes, I am absolutely in love with Marvel's Daredevil. Yes, I think that Gus Van Sant's Elephant is one of the most beautiful and haunting things I have ever seen. And don't even talk to me if you've seen Paranoid Park and didn't like it, because I'm not sure we can be friends. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but seriously, go see it. It's a thing of beauty. Really.)
But here's the thing that all of those violent movies have in common: they all put an emphasis on the consequences of violence, not the mere act of violence. Think about it for a second. Think about how many films you've seen that treat violence as a given and brush off the consequences. Think about the films where superheroes take out entire cities and we're never told about collateral damage or civilian recovery. Think about war films where the hero takes out hundreds of enemies and we never even learn their names, it's just "the other guy" or "the bad guy." And then think about Daredevil. Not only is Wilson Fisk thoroughly humanized (we see montages of the guy waking up next to his girlfriend and making her a freaking omelet, for Pete's sake), but so are his victims--even the ones who are part of organized crime rings. Every time someone is killed on Daredevil, we see the fall-out. The death scenes may be violent and difficult to watch, but they serve a purpose. As a result, the message comes through loud and clear: your actions have consequences, even if and when you are acting for the greater good.
Now, here's the thing about Daredevil, and A Clockwork Orange, and all those other movies I just mentioned (Zero Dark Thirty, The Hurt Locker, Saving Private Ryan, Let the Right One In--I could go on and on). They are all R-rated, independent, or available only through specific providers. For example, Daredevil can only be seen if you have Netflix, you can't just come across it channel-surfing or scrolling through the free options on Hulu. You have to seek them out. They don't just fall into your lap--or at least, they usually don't. If you're a film student, or your dorm counselor is weirdly into Swedish horror, or your dad has very specific tastes in superhero TV, well, that's another story. But the point stands. It's very unlikely you'll wander across A Clockwork Orange in your post-work channel-surfing.
But you are likely to come across a lot of other things channel-surfing that are not R-rated, or obscure, or foreign, or Netflix-exclusive. Like Lord of the Rings, for instance. Or Harry Potter. Or Spider-Man. Or--and this is the worst of all--Fox News. CNN. MSNBC. Hell, Buzzfeed, Huffpost or the DailyDot. Pick a news outlet, any news outlet.
Let's tackle these one at a time, starting with movies that are widely considered to be kids'/teens' films. Lord of the Rings, for instance, where the Orcs are dismembered, stabbed, shot with arrows, hit with cannons--and that's just in one battle sequence--and entire armies are wiped out without so much as a "oh, shit." Let's talk about how the only deaths that are given any kind of due in those films are the ones where we know the characters' names. Otherwise, they're just there for the body count. Let's talk about all the supernatural battle scenes in Curse of the Black Pearl, or Harry Potter, or Chronicles of Narnia--that's the one that really grates my cheese, the Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, because we NEVER ACTUALLY SEE ANY DEATH. The witch turns someone to stone and it's undone by Aslan, who's just come back from the dead himself, and then to top it all off Lucy is given a magical cordial that brings back anyone who's on the verge of dying. I get that it's a fairy tale, but come on! Oh, and can we talk about the freaking battle scene in Breaking Dawn--you know, the one that was revealed to be NOT EVEN REAL? See kiddies, violence has no consequence! It's not even real! This stuff never happens! War is just a game and if you get stabbed, you have a special energy drink that'll bring you back to life!
Am I being a tad unfair here? Perhaps I am, but you know what, I'm done. I'm sick of it. Enough is enough. In a world where there are more mass shootings than there have been days of the year, America's parents are, I shit you not, more concerned with nudity than they are with graphic violence. Let's just think about that for a second. People are actually, for serious, more afraid of their child seeing a naked body than graphic violence. Now, last I checked, was something that everyone had, and the mere act of being naked has never, in fact, hurt anyone; otherwise we'd be in serious trouble every time we took a shower...so what in the hell is that about?
Hey, MPAA, a little hint: if you normalize the shit out of violence by letting it creep into PG-13 and PG and even G-rated films, you cannot be surprised at the consequences.
"But Avery," you protest, "there's lots of evidence that violent movies aren't to blame!" Let me repeat, I do not exclusively blame violent movies. Did I not just say that A Clockwork Orange was my favorite movie? My problem is not that violent movies exist. My problem is that every film that I've ever seen where the consequences of violence are thoroughly portrayed and examined, has been slapped with an R-rating. Meanwhile films where killing someone has no consequence, or is justified because it's a "bad guy" (think Agent Cody Banks or, well, any Disney film really--but that one sticks out because in most cases, the hero-kid is not directly responsible for the death of the antagonist) get a free pass because it's usually bloodless. Now, isn't that just a little messed up, you think? Doing things that way literally removes the consequences of violence. In real life, when people get shot or beaten, there's blood. They die. In the movies...well, who cares?
And here's the issue I have with that. When I was a kid, I was convinced--and I do mean convinced, no one short of Jesus Christ himself could have persuaded me to believe otherwise--that Eeyore was stalking me from the hall closet. Back in the day, you see, there was a show called Pooh Corner and it featured Disney World-like full costumed characters instead of traditional animation. So in my mind Eeyore was real, he was in the closet, and he would not leave me alone. Why? Who knows. All that matters is that my parents had a lot of sleepless nights convincing me that there was not a depressed donkey hiding in our linen closet.
My point is that little kids cannot separate fantasy and reality. They're well known for it. For some kids it's a monster under the bed; for others it's Eeyore in the hall closet. Think about the effect that gratuitous violence has on kids who don't know whether it's real or not. That's exactly why my parents had the media policy they did when I was growing up: let her hear curse words, let her see a naked body, but anything more violent than a one-hit fistfight, we're going to have to talk about. Kids don't understand death. We really don't. I remember not understanding that when someone in a movie dies, the actor is still alive. A lot of kids I knew had the opposite problem and didn't get that when someone in real life dies, it's for good.
So there's one-half the problem, right there. And then we come to the other half: the news media. And by news media, in this day and age I don't just mean the New York Times, or Fox News. I mean TV, newspapers, magazines (ANY magazine, Time or Tiger Beat), online magazines and news sites like the Huffington Post, NPR, AM/FM radio, and--perhaps the biggest offenders--social media sites. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Buzzfeed, any of them. Now, I stand by the idea that news media is actually a worse offender in the violence department than film violence. Film violence is staged, and most rational adults realize that. But when you splash footage of violent killings over the news and talk about it at length, replay the clip in slow-motion, hire experts to analyze it while you replay it in slow-motion, reenact it with live actors or computer imagery...well, you get my point. It's real. That is a real person dying in that video clip. And now it's out there for everyone to see.
And what kind of message does that send to disturbed kids with access to weapons? It was bad enough back in the 1990s, when Columbine happened and round-the-clock coverage was on every news station of every TV in America. Now, shit's gone viral. Back then we relied on security footage. Now, you can whip out your cell phone as a gunman blasts into your school and film your last moments--there's a morbid thought, am I right? But it's true. In this day and age, I can google "ISIS beheadings" and find a video in the time it took you to read this sentence. We immortalize killers with TV, radio, and worst of all the internet. And then we're surprised when another psychopath with a gun and an axe to grind makes his attempt to go down in history...and every time, we give them exactly what they want. Roger Ebert said this a hell of a lot better back in 2003, and today it still rings true--maybe even more so than it did back then, because as I said, back in '03, we didn't have the viral video culture we do now.
But it gets even better, because that news media that I talked about, the one that will sensationalize killers with theme songs, catchy names and 24/7 motive analysis? They're excellent at putting the blame back on fictional media. The fictional media then turns right back around and satirizes the news media (see Gone Girl for a truly excellent example of this), the news media fights back by censoring and vilifying the fictional media, and the circle continues. Neither will accept their share of the blame, and neither will cease in throwing stones at each other. It's like watching a never-ending game of air hockey that nobody can ever win.
Now, I don't know what to do about gun culture. I don't know how to fight the NRA. Taking away all guns isn't the solution...we all saw how well that worked with alcohol in the 1930s...but the other extreme clearly hasn't done us much good either. Whatever your view on guns might be, I'm asking you to at least agree with me on this: letting kids think that violence has no consequence is a bad idea. Because, Jesus Christ, look what happens when those kids grow up. With that said, I don't know how to strike the right balance between freedom granted by the Second Amendment, the right to protect yourself, and the danger that guns present. Nor do I know the best way to talk to the next generation about this exact problem.
Here's what I do know and what I will do. I will continue to speak out against sensationalizing killers, thieves and terrorists in the news media. I will never, ever say or post the names of the Sandy Hook killer, the Columbine killers, the Planned Parenthood shooter, the Aurora Dark Knight killer...none of them. I will not be part of their immortality. I will continue to fight the glorification of violence and demonization of sex that we've seen in our culture. And I will ask, again and again, that my fellow filmmakers--students, amateurs, professionals and celebrities alike--do the same.
Let's tackle these one at a time, starting with movies that are widely considered to be kids'/teens' films. Lord of the Rings, for instance, where the Orcs are dismembered, stabbed, shot with arrows, hit with cannons--and that's just in one battle sequence--and entire armies are wiped out without so much as a "oh, shit." Let's talk about how the only deaths that are given any kind of due in those films are the ones where we know the characters' names. Otherwise, they're just there for the body count. Let's talk about all the supernatural battle scenes in Curse of the Black Pearl, or Harry Potter, or Chronicles of Narnia--that's the one that really grates my cheese, the Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, because we NEVER ACTUALLY SEE ANY DEATH. The witch turns someone to stone and it's undone by Aslan, who's just come back from the dead himself, and then to top it all off Lucy is given a magical cordial that brings back anyone who's on the verge of dying. I get that it's a fairy tale, but come on! Oh, and can we talk about the freaking battle scene in Breaking Dawn--you know, the one that was revealed to be NOT EVEN REAL? See kiddies, violence has no consequence! It's not even real! This stuff never happens! War is just a game and if you get stabbed, you have a special energy drink that'll bring you back to life!
Am I being a tad unfair here? Perhaps I am, but you know what, I'm done. I'm sick of it. Enough is enough. In a world where there are more mass shootings than there have been days of the year, America's parents are, I shit you not, more concerned with nudity than they are with graphic violence. Let's just think about that for a second. People are actually, for serious, more afraid of their child seeing a naked body than graphic violence. Now, last I checked, was something that everyone had, and the mere act of being naked has never, in fact, hurt anyone; otherwise we'd be in serious trouble every time we took a shower...so what in the hell is that about?
Hey, MPAA, a little hint: if you normalize the shit out of violence by letting it creep into PG-13 and PG and even G-rated films, you cannot be surprised at the consequences.
"But Avery," you protest, "there's lots of evidence that violent movies aren't to blame!" Let me repeat, I do not exclusively blame violent movies. Did I not just say that A Clockwork Orange was my favorite movie? My problem is not that violent movies exist. My problem is that every film that I've ever seen where the consequences of violence are thoroughly portrayed and examined, has been slapped with an R-rating. Meanwhile films where killing someone has no consequence, or is justified because it's a "bad guy" (think Agent Cody Banks or, well, any Disney film really--but that one sticks out because in most cases, the hero-kid is not directly responsible for the death of the antagonist) get a free pass because it's usually bloodless. Now, isn't that just a little messed up, you think? Doing things that way literally removes the consequences of violence. In real life, when people get shot or beaten, there's blood. They die. In the movies...well, who cares?
And here's the issue I have with that. When I was a kid, I was convinced--and I do mean convinced, no one short of Jesus Christ himself could have persuaded me to believe otherwise--that Eeyore was stalking me from the hall closet. Back in the day, you see, there was a show called Pooh Corner and it featured Disney World-like full costumed characters instead of traditional animation. So in my mind Eeyore was real, he was in the closet, and he would not leave me alone. Why? Who knows. All that matters is that my parents had a lot of sleepless nights convincing me that there was not a depressed donkey hiding in our linen closet.
My point is that little kids cannot separate fantasy and reality. They're well known for it. For some kids it's a monster under the bed; for others it's Eeyore in the hall closet. Think about the effect that gratuitous violence has on kids who don't know whether it's real or not. That's exactly why my parents had the media policy they did when I was growing up: let her hear curse words, let her see a naked body, but anything more violent than a one-hit fistfight, we're going to have to talk about. Kids don't understand death. We really don't. I remember not understanding that when someone in a movie dies, the actor is still alive. A lot of kids I knew had the opposite problem and didn't get that when someone in real life dies, it's for good.
So there's one-half the problem, right there. And then we come to the other half: the news media. And by news media, in this day and age I don't just mean the New York Times, or Fox News. I mean TV, newspapers, magazines (ANY magazine, Time or Tiger Beat), online magazines and news sites like the Huffington Post, NPR, AM/FM radio, and--perhaps the biggest offenders--social media sites. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Buzzfeed, any of them. Now, I stand by the idea that news media is actually a worse offender in the violence department than film violence. Film violence is staged, and most rational adults realize that. But when you splash footage of violent killings over the news and talk about it at length, replay the clip in slow-motion, hire experts to analyze it while you replay it in slow-motion, reenact it with live actors or computer imagery...well, you get my point. It's real. That is a real person dying in that video clip. And now it's out there for everyone to see.
And what kind of message does that send to disturbed kids with access to weapons? It was bad enough back in the 1990s, when Columbine happened and round-the-clock coverage was on every news station of every TV in America. Now, shit's gone viral. Back then we relied on security footage. Now, you can whip out your cell phone as a gunman blasts into your school and film your last moments--there's a morbid thought, am I right? But it's true. In this day and age, I can google "ISIS beheadings" and find a video in the time it took you to read this sentence. We immortalize killers with TV, radio, and worst of all the internet. And then we're surprised when another psychopath with a gun and an axe to grind makes his attempt to go down in history...and every time, we give them exactly what they want. Roger Ebert said this a hell of a lot better back in 2003, and today it still rings true--maybe even more so than it did back then, because as I said, back in '03, we didn't have the viral video culture we do now.
But it gets even better, because that news media that I talked about, the one that will sensationalize killers with theme songs, catchy names and 24/7 motive analysis? They're excellent at putting the blame back on fictional media. The fictional media then turns right back around and satirizes the news media (see Gone Girl for a truly excellent example of this), the news media fights back by censoring and vilifying the fictional media, and the circle continues. Neither will accept their share of the blame, and neither will cease in throwing stones at each other. It's like watching a never-ending game of air hockey that nobody can ever win.
Now, I don't know what to do about gun culture. I don't know how to fight the NRA. Taking away all guns isn't the solution...we all saw how well that worked with alcohol in the 1930s...but the other extreme clearly hasn't done us much good either. Whatever your view on guns might be, I'm asking you to at least agree with me on this: letting kids think that violence has no consequence is a bad idea. Because, Jesus Christ, look what happens when those kids grow up. With that said, I don't know how to strike the right balance between freedom granted by the Second Amendment, the right to protect yourself, and the danger that guns present. Nor do I know the best way to talk to the next generation about this exact problem.
Here's what I do know and what I will do. I will continue to speak out against sensationalizing killers, thieves and terrorists in the news media. I will never, ever say or post the names of the Sandy Hook killer, the Columbine killers, the Planned Parenthood shooter, the Aurora Dark Knight killer...none of them. I will not be part of their immortality. I will continue to fight the glorification of violence and demonization of sex that we've seen in our culture. And I will ask, again and again, that my fellow filmmakers--students, amateurs, professionals and celebrities alike--do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)