20 June 2007

Hollywood Rediscovers Faith . . .


Sorry, wrong Faith. Though, does seem like Eliza Dushku should work more, I mean look at her (and she's not a bad actress, either).

The LA Times has an article, not really an article more an unpaid press release, today regarding Evan Almighty. It's aimed at assuaging fears that the picture is anti-religion, or that the picture is too religious.

But the message I take away is that the film isn't a celebration of a Christian God or Christian Theology, but it's pure, unadulterated Gaiaist Worship wrapped in a flimsy gauzy pretext of being semi-christian. The article doesn't address that issue at all, instead they end the piece with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about some viewer in Kansas who was thankful for this picture (but for all we know her reaction was more for the 'green' message of the film and not the religiosity)

Somehow I doubt they ever address the promise from God to Noah in the Old Testament that He would never visit a global flood upon the Earth again. Seems like the whole 'covenant with God' part of Genesis should be the take away from that part of the bible, and not, 'gee, wouldn't it be cool if God did something to help fix the environment, like wipe almost everybody out with a flood again'. Guess little plot inconveniences like that aren't worth worrying about. Not like anyone really ever reads that text all that closely, anyway, right? I'm no bible scholar, not even faithful, but even I know that there's an explicit mention in Genesis that there wouldn't be another global flood (presumably they address this somehow in the picture).

The main message of the film based on the press and the ad campaign seems to be about environmentalism. Caring about the planet and being Christian aren't antithetical, many would argue that being a good steward of the environment is a basic tenant of faith, but based on that article, I don't get the sense that beyond having God in the picture, or having Evan pray, or mentioning a few biblical passages, that this film has anything to do with Christianity as it is practiced. Instead this film feels like an extended Goracle approved Gaiaist revenge fantasy about how our wicked and wasteful ways will loose upon the Earth unbridled destruction unless we all buy twisty compact fluorescent light bulbs and insist that everyone else ditch their SUVs, set their thermostats to 80 during the summer, and downsize their lives.

My impression that this is primarily a Gaiaist picture and not a Christian or Jewish picture (Genesis is Old Testament after all, should give the tribes some love, even though they've been trying to sell this pictures to Christian groups, haven't seen anything in the publicity or press that precludes the Evan character from being Jewish), isn't helped by the official website. An "Act of Random Kindness" link is there (so hippie dippie), and a prominent link to another website http://www.getonboardnow.org/, which is nothing but the usual crunchy granola enviro-action recommendations and blather. To suggest that this film is somehow a kindred spirit to all those sword and sandal, fishes and loaves pictures of the 50s and 60s seems like a far, far stretch.



Ten things I know about this picture without seeing it or reading much press about it:

1. Other primates are always funny.
2. Beards are always funny.
3. No matter how bad the inevitable flood scene looks, somehow nobody will be killed.
4. Lauren Graham is a cutie (see, being 40 can be fabulous!)
5. There will be at least 4 scenes in this picture where various people step in various animal droppings.
6. This movie cost an arkload of money to make.
7. You could do worse than Morgan Freeman for casting "God".
8. I like lamp (sorry wrong, Steve Carell character).
9. Get Smart won't be funny, either (sorry, already getting a head start on dismissing Steve Carell's picture for next summer).
10. Shouldn't this film have disqualified Tom Shadyac from ever directing a feature again?



UPDATE: Decided if I'm going to mention Steve Carell should at least spell his name right.

2 comments:

P_J said...

I especially like the prominent role given to his hair. Because if God did decide to violate his covenant and flood the world again, and then chose a guy to build an ark, the important thing is not that he be a "righteous man, blameless among the people of his time" who "walked with God." The key is that he should look like Noah. God is all about appearances.

marcel said...

hello
vous pouvez mettre vos infos sur jewisheritage.fr
shalom