Ken

A little less than a week ago i attended a memorial service for Kenneth P. Strong, who was my beginning acting professor when i was a freshman here at UNC. He had brain cancer. It was in remission when he taught my class and for another year after that. But it came back, and the few times i ran into Ken last semester, the toll it was taking on him was growing more apparent.

When we got the email saying he had died, i wasn't entirely surprised - he had resigned near the end of last semester, so it was really a matter of time. But at the specific moment i opened the email, Ken wasn't what was on my mind, so it still came as a bit of a shock.

And then the memorial service proved, well, more difficult than i had anticipated, given the inevitability of the situation. i was struck particularly by two remarks. the first came from McKay Coble, the drama department chair. she showed a picture of Ken in character as Uncle Vanya, screaming, and explained that it was both like him - in his tremendous talent - and unlike him because the picture looked so mean. Ken wasn't mean. She said he could not comprehend meanness. Why would someone choose that over kinder alternatives? Second, i remember Ray Dooley commenting on his ceaseless sense of humor. Even through the cancer, he found ways to make people smile, seeking out the laughs to be had.

What really got me about these remembrances was when i thought back to my time in class with Ken, really thought about what he was like, and i was reminded of all these things. His enormous kindness and humor. And how he ended ever class by telling us, "I love you!" And as much as i despise cliches, i can't get over the idea that this is precisely the kind of man that i should be trying to live like. So here i am, and i'm going to do my best to understand meanness less than i do, and to always look for the humor around me and share it with whoever is close by.

But don't worry, i'll be careful out there.

Christian Students Today

A few days ago at the first Intervarsity large group of the new semester, Alex Kirk told about this time he was asked to go to some place talk to a bunch of apparently important people (i've lost some of the nuances of the tale in the last few days) on the subject of Christian students today. While i don't remember what Alex had to say about Christian students today, i remember him mentioning something about the "challenges" we face. And that got me thinking. What are some of the biggest challenges to Christian students on college campuses? To the development of our own faith and to our ability to witness to other people. (i continue to be uncomfortable with words like witnessing and ministering.)

It is the second stumbling block that first came to mind - what are the things that keep us from being able to reach non-believers and seekers on our campuses?

And the conclusion i came to, first and foremost, was this:

Conservative Christian leaders on television. From pastors with megachurches on Sunday mornings, to talking heads with political ties on the Sunday news shows. (i'm always particularly struck by the irony that Christians on television come out most on the sabbath, keeping it holy in a delightful blend of the Church and the State, depending on which channel you watch.)

Using television to reach a large audience can be a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. But there's some sort of flaw in the system. It appears that the people who most want to get the attention of the large audiences are the ones who are most extreme in their beliefs (and in the case of Christianity, that is usually a conservative extreme), and that in turn makes it so that the wider audience's primary view of what all Christians are like is directly influenced and skewed by the appearance of Joel Osteen telling us all how God wants us to be wealthy so that we can be happy (a rather interesting interpretation of the Rich Young Ruler story).

So, when us college students want to share our faith with our fellow students, not only do we have to deal with the issues of suffering, sex, pride, greed, and above all self-centeredness, but we have to do it while also trying to correct the image these fellow students have formed about where we're coming from. It's not always about saving souls from Satan.

We aren't trying to judge them just because the Talking Heads are. We aren't all discriminatory and we aren't all supporting our political opinions with our spiritual beliefs (or if we are, we at least know that they aren't always the same thing). And even if we pledge allegiance to the flag, we know that there are some allegiances that are more important.

Television has almost completely undermined any clean slate we Christian students may have to work with on the campus around us - and given the tarnish of sin, most of those slates are already pretty dirty. We have to take 3 steps back before we can ever take a step forward. And given the fact that Christianity is a religion that at its most basic level demands primarily that we love each other and take care of each other, it shouldn't be such a difficult thing for college kids trying to figure their lives out to be open to hearing about. But it is.

So in the meantime, we'll keep on doing what the apostles did. Looking for opportunities, sharing what we know to be true with the people who care enough to listen, and sharing meals with people as often as possible, because nothing is ever going to beat the impact that having someone sit down and engage with you like a unique and valuable part of God's creation can have on a person. Not blogging or reading books, not hearing sermons from men in expensive suits, and certainly not being talked at by a television screen.

Cinephilia: The disease that needs no cure

Apparently, the thing that people are supposed to do at the end of the year is make a list. And this being the end of a decade, there are twice the lists out.

Now, i'm a bit of a cinephile.

cin·e·phile [sin-uh-fahyl] n. A film or movie enthusiast.

i really like movies. a lot. i watch a lot of them, a lot of the time. So i'ma give into the trend, and put up a list. here are 30 movies i have selected as my own personal favorite/best movies of the decade, divided into a few categories. it's a subjective list. all of these things are. i'm probably missing some awesome ones because i forgot. i've probably subconsciously left a few off because they're a little too obvious. but either way, if there are movies listed here that you've never seen, you should probably look them up. i own a bunch of them, so if you know me, ask and you shall receive.

The Ones You'll Probably See on a Lot of "Best Movies of the Decade" Lists:

• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind*
  
• The Lord of the Rings Trilogy* (yes, i'm counting it as one movie. because that's what it really is)
• Lost in Translation
• There Will Be Blood*
• Kill Bill (Volumes 1 & 2, because again, it's really one movie)
• Brokeback Mountain
• The Royal Tenenbaums*
• No Country for Old Men
• City of God*

The Ones You Might See on Some of Them, Especially If It's A Really Awesome List:

• The Fountain
• The Pianist
• Once*
• The Passion of the Christ
• Moulin Rouge
• The Departed
• Black Hawk Down
• Gladiator
• Almost Famous*
• Gosford Park*
• Finding Nemo*

The Ones That Will Probably Only Be on This List:

• Inglourious Basterds
• The Reader (i still believe this would have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for the Oscar if only a few people had actually watched it.)
• Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
• Munich
• Finding Neverland*
• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
• Billy Elliot
• Closer
• A Very Long Engagement
• Cinderella Man

So those are 30 movies that you should all go and watch right now. The movies marked with asterisks (that would be a * for those of you know them as "little star things") are members of very special elite group of the ones that stand above the rest (AKA the top 10), and should be higher on your netflix queue, which i am sure all three of you reading this are going to go change right away after leaving this page.

It's Clobberin' Time

My new year's resolution: to get this thing going again.

i don't have a clue what i'll write about.

N.T. Wright is probably correct in his summation of blogging as little more than "intellectual masturbation"** But hey, i suppose there are worse ways to stimulate the organ of one's mind.

further, i'm 94% sure that not a single one of you will ever read this, so why not bother going for it anyway?

okay that's all.

peace in the new year, y'all.

**it is entirely possible that N.T. Wright never said that, and that it was said by someone entirely different, or that it was never said by anyone at all until i said it just now. i'm just giving fair warning, because fair warning is how i roll.

Checking In

Wow. i thought summer break would make me more inclined to start writing on here. That turned out not to be true. See, i only like to write a blog, for everyone in the world to see, after i've somehow been challenged in my thoughts, or observe something cool in a show or a movie or a book, and then i process it and end up with a conclusion. That way, a somewhat fully formed set of ideas show up on here.

But so far this summer, i haven't been doing a whole lot. i've spent plenty of time with entertainment, watching tv shows online and movies on the DVR. i thought i had a job lined up at the Pentagon this summer, but that fell through, so i've been applying for jobs - haven't heard anything yet, but i'm holding out hope.

Since i don't really have anything to let your minds digest, here's a bit of what i've been up to:

Read:

• Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
• Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (this didn't really open my eyes to a whole lot i didn't already know about ehrman, or anything that really challenges my faith a whole bunch, which is why i didn't write a post about it - check it out for yourself, and see what you think)
  

Reading:

• Justification by N.T. Wright (for Ben White's reading group. i'm taking part by email, except i haven't actually emailed any thoughts yet. i'm waiting for Wright to get to the point - right now, i can't really figure out what he's saying, or what Piper said, so i'm just trying to take it in as best as i can until ch. 4, which is actually about justification.)
• Love is an Orientation by Andrew Marin

About to start reading:

• Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides

TV shows i've been watching bits and pieces of so far this summer:

• Mad Men
• 24
• The Shield
• True Blood
• Entourage
• The Practice
• Pushing Daisies
• Sports Night

i've also started reading Jeremiah and Luke, and will continue through those over the course of the summer.

and oh, i watched the Tony Awards on sunday, and i'm glad Billy Elliot did so well - i saw it in London, and it really is a great show. Next month i'll be going to the Kennedy Center to see The Color Purple and hopefully Spring Awakening. Because musicals are freaking sweet. deal with it.

Okay, that's a basic update on my summer. feel free to get in touch, ask questions about the shows or books, and please pray for me to get a job! i need both the money, and to get off my butt and do something this summer.

alchemy

on earth, where moth and rust
destroy, all things we
touch turn to virus,
sour blood red orange acid,
oxidizing my iron so it can't
sharpen anything else.
like a crippled king midas,
with no one to chide us -
where was the treasure before
the gold? can't remember.
now all we see is our
reflection in a shiny shallow
surface.
and the acid virus corrodes,
and my iron heart implodes.
stop the blood pumping, the
oxidation is my oxygenation -
they're the same thing,
one's just a bit lukewarm,
but i can take it.
as long as i'm fed my acid
virus vitamins by my reflection
in the gold, i can ignore the
rust below the surface
scratching, grating, weathering
my insides,
eroding my hots,
my colds,
leaving the sludge that's
left when the steam
disappears
from this earth, where moths destroy.
where time is all our enemy
unless we're counting down instead
of up.
unless.
unless.
we give it back.
reject the virus.
spew it from our mouths,
melt our reflection in the gold,
pour it into a new mold,
white hot heat
to form a new treasure.
finding value in the rust,
the sharper insides we can trust.
stop pointing our fingers assigning
worth, stop touching
creation with out alchemy.
gold sharpens nothing but
our narcissism,
but the immune system of
three bodies is not easily broken.
on earth where rust endures
more than flesh, where flesh
itself is lukewarm, destroyed
by the acid, attacked by the
virus - but our rusty hearts,
those are the parts that aren't
destroyed. what does ruse do
to rust? nothing. but wait out
the storm, as the temperature
goes higher.
and the fever breaks, and we break,
and our hearts break. and the
dams on our tears break, and all
those salty splinters come out,
and king midas is a peasant.
and his treasure is gone.
but it took the virus with it.
and his new treasure, his plight,
serves all - the anti-biotic of purpose.
the beauty in a brown-gray
moth, the healing powers
of rust blood on its wings,
these are what midas wants to
touch - and his dirt-covered
fingers now cleaner than
he ever saw them before,
leaving the earth, learning
his worth, as moth and rust
destroy around
about outside
west eastside
north southside
but not ever again inside
his sharpened iron heart.

If I Picked the Winners

i know i haven't been around in a while, but i felt like putting this up. The Oscars are tonight, and i've had a lot of trouble with my predictions. i simply don't want to admit that certain things are likely to win because there are something i think deserve it more. So here is my ideal winners list, if only i picked them. The only nominated films i've not seen are The Visitor (nominated for best actor, Richard Jenkins), Defiance(nominated best music score, James Newton Howard), and Bolt (nominated for best animated feature).

Picture - The Reader. i know Slumdog Millionaire is supposed to win, but this one really stuck with me for a few days after watching it. It actually affected me, and it's not terribly easy for movies to do that.

Actor - Sean Penn in Milk. i'd be fine if Mickey Rourke wins, but i lean just a little towards Penn on this one. i've got a feeling, though, that if i see The Visitor i might be pulling for Richard Jenkins. But tonight i'm with Penn.

Actress - Kate Winslet in The Reader. Because she deserves it, frankly. i think it's the best performance in the category. Melissa Leo is a fairly close second (and there are apparently some murmurs of an upset from her tonight), but for me, it's gotta be Winslet.

Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. Again, because he deserves it. as much as i loved Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder, Ledger is simply amazing here.

Supporting Actress - Viola Davis in Doubt. By far the most difficult role in the film, and she nailed it. i'll be okay if Penelope Cruz wins for Vicky Christina Barcelona, but Davis takes her ten minutes on screen and makes the movie work.

Director - Danny Boyle

Original Screenplay - Milk (though i'd love to see Wall-E win it)

Adapted Screenplay - Slumdog Millionaire (or i wouldn't mind Doubt, but that won't happen)


Now we're gonna get into the technical and artistic categories. Some of them are more obvious than others, but again, these are just gonna be the ones i think deserve it most.


Cinematography - The Dark Knight

Editing - The Dark Knight (Slumdog Millionaire is a close 2nd)

Art Direction - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Costume Design - The Duchess (or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

Makeup - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Score - Wall-E. i know Slumdog is the frontrunner, but i love this score, and think it does more for the movie than Slumdog's score. for instance, the first 20-30 minutes of Wall-E have no dialogue - the music has probably half the responsibility in carrying the story along, and it does it almost without even letting you know it's there. it's such a naturally integrated part of the movie, and i think it deserves this one because of it.

Song - "Down to Earth" from Wall-E. i just like the song a little better, and i kind of want Wall-E to get as many as it can, but i won't be devastated if "Jai Ho" from Slumdog wins, just as long as it's not "O Saya."

Sound - The Dark Knight (or Wall-E)

Sound Editing - The Dark Knight (or Slumdog Millionaire)

Visual Effects - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Animated - Wall-E


That's what i want to happen. Deal with it.

acting in the wings

Today I watched All About Eve, a movie from 1950 about an aging stage actress and the younger woman who conives her way into the leading lady's role.  I thought it was particularly interesting that in a film all about plays and stage acting, there was never a single scene of the stage performances - we never see any part of the plays or of the acting on stage.  I'm pretty sure it's because everyone gives their best performances off stage. 

Basic Math

i don't really get what's going on. i don't understand it.

i've been keeping up on the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, and a lot of things just don't make sense to me.

To start out, here are some things i do get:

• Israel is an actual nation. It has, you know, a real army and stuff. It has national sovereignty and the right to protect itself from attack.
• Hamas is, well, a terrorist group who broke a truce. They do not recognize Israel as a nation, and therefore, lasting peace is not a viable option as long as they are the dominant governing body in Palestine, so something probably needs to be done about that.
• The paradox there is that Israel does not recognize Palestine, so i guess lasting peace could also not happen while Israel is the dominant governing body of...itself. Israel has the advantage in this respect though, as they are, in fact, an actual nation capable of being recognized.

here are some things i don't get:

• Last i heard, there have been 2 Israeli deaths as the result of Hamas' mortor attacks. There have been over 315 deaths as the result of Israel's attacks into Gaza, which Israel refers to as self-defense. i am under the impression that attacks are typically retaliated against based on a "proportional response." That would mean, basically, a life for a life. (This is the same sort of principle that support for capital punishment is frequently based on, but that is a subject for a different post.) My powerful math skillz tell me that 315 does not equal 2; these same math skillz tell me that this response is therefore not proportional. Now, that's fine and good if Israel decides they want to handle this one differently, that's their right. And it's fine and good if each of the 315+ people dead are members of Hamas, as they are the targets of Israel's attacks. But what if they're not? We can't know for sure, i don't think, and isn't the chance that Israel may have killed a couple of innocent folks who may never have even thrown a rock at a fence enough of a reason to step back a second and rethink what has surely gone past the category of self-defense? i'm certainly not saying Israel is wrong. Actually, i'm saying Hamas is wrong. i'm just also saying that maybe Israel should maybe back off a little bit. They made their point.
• All that said, i don't understand why the media isn't being just a wee bit more objective in their coverage -- i'm hearing phrases like "a truce expired 10 days ago" when i should be hearing "terrorist organization Hamas broke a truce 10 days ago" and seeing headlines like "Israel pounds Gaza for third day" and little reminder of the fact that is is a response, even if it is a disproportionate one. It's kind of like how the media coverered the democratic nominees for the presidential candidacy, except instead of Obama, there's Palestine (his supporters are like the pro-Palestine protesters: overly emotional, and probably farther removed from the problems they're talking about than they're willing to let on), and that makes Clinton like Israel (who people will accept if they have to, since it seems like there's no way to get rid of it). Is that a fair analogy? Probably not. But given the example set for me by most major media outlets, i'd say i'm still doing alright.

But oh, i don't really even know what i'm talking about, aside from my crazy idea that we shouldn't go around killing people as a way to solve problems. i mean, i guess i just haven't learned from all the other times when it worked so well! Oh wait...no, that must have been something else.

i know this wasn't the cheerful holiday blog i may have predicted on facebook, filled with tales of London and Amsterdam and skiing in the Alps, but hopefully there's still time for that. Maybe i'll even reach far back in the bag of illusions (tricks are what a whore does for money) and write about something else, like the election, or my semester or something. Who knows? No one. Who cares? How many is less than no one?

Living in a box

Wow, it's been a while, blog. i've missed you.

It's finally Christmas break, and i have to some to sit and be still and contemplate the many mysteries of the universe. i had a pretty fantastic semester at UNC with the Achordants and the small group, and the friends, and the classes, etc. But now i'm home, which means i can read Newsweek articles on msnbc.com and then post my commentary here. i just took a trip to London to see some plays, and i'll be back to talk about those later, but this struck my fancy, so i thought i'd get it out of the way while i'm around.

Barack Obama has selected Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural ceremony. This has apparently upset some members of the gay community, because Rick Warren, a Christian (zoinks!), is less than supportive of gay rights. To help settle this, Newsweek had two gay writers do a sort of article debate about it - Chris Crain in support of the decision, and Leah McElrath Renna against it.

Basically, Crain insists that we look at what unifies us, rather than what divides us, claiming that Warren represents the beliefs of many Americans, including the foundational Christian beliefs shared by President-elect Obama. Renna, on the other hand, claims that by selecting someone who doesn't recognize gays and lesbians as spiritually whole people, but as people who choose to be sinners, Obama has selected an inappropriate person to be the "spiritual representative of our nation as a whole."

For the most part, i side with Crain on this. Although i understand the complaints of those who may call him an appeaser and maintain their frustration with Obama and his selection, his arguments at least focused on the unity that Obama has been emphasizing, and he calls out Renna for encouraging disunity among Americans, gay and straight alike (an accusation i have been more than happy about making towards the many many Obama supporters who have managed to live through the cognitive dissonance it must have required to actually be an Obama supporter, seeking change and unity, except for, you know, that other half of the country, eewww).

i just wanted to point out that Renna fails to take into consideration the fact that Warren very likely believes that no one is spiritually whole, and that we are all sinners because, that's sort of what Christians believe. Not that Renna went out of her way to actually talk about or even speculate on what Christianity itself actually holds to be true. She mainly just focused on what she thought. Furthermore, i'm bothered by the fact that she gives the position of giving an invocation at the inaugural ceremony so much credibility. i was a bit surprised to discover that America even had a spiritual representation of our nationa as a whole, our very own direct line to God, who must be an American. i mean, if he wasn't an American, why would it be so important to represent the entire nation to Him?

But then, i wonder who Renna would have selected as a better "spiritual representation"? Is there anyone out there is atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu out there? Also, if that person could be gay and straight, black and white (no, wait, Obama's got that one covered already), a man and a woman, American and...well, no, only American (since that's apparently all that matters to God), then will that person please stand up, because i bet you meet Leah Renna's standards for who would be best to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Or no, how about this? If you can just be a Christian who agrees with Renna's opinions on this one particular issue, then i bet the entire gay community would feel better. Kay, thanks :)

Do you see, Leah Renna? No one will ever make you happy, which actually makes me kind of sad. Your sadness is a virus, and it is infecting me, so i'm going to leave now, before it spreads further, but before i do, i thought you should know, that gaping (cross-shaped?) hole in your soul cannot be filled by a woman. Or a man. Or a pro-choice, gay-rights activist Christian. Or Barack Obama. Or debating issues that have little importance aside from what you assign to them. i hope you've figured out what i'm getting at by now because i don't really feel like spelling it out any more.

Just because you put yourself into a box doesn't mean you have to make everyone else live in one, too.

(And before anyone does try to put me in a box on this, please feel free to get in touch with me about anything you'd like me to clarify about my faith, my opinions on Obama, who i actually don't mind very much, my views of homosexuality, etc. i can't guarantee i'll have very good answers, but i'd rather talk to you about them than let you draw conclusions based on this one entry.)