Dave | unobtrusive lucidity

Satire…Gotta Love It!

What would the world be without a good controversy now and again?

Today, the American political scene exploded with the scandal that manifested itself on the cover of The New Yorker, depicting Senator Barack Obama in, how shall we say, less than flattering term? Okay, lets be blunt: it portrays he and his wife as religious terrorist extremists with aspirations of U.S. domination and having the end of democracy and the American way as we know it at heart.

Or does it?

The New Yorker, while always a bit snobbish for my taste, has always been (in)famous for its political cartoons. The publication specializes in satire, and that is exactly what editor David Remnick insists that this is. The thrust of the cover is to, in Remnick’s view, portray the ridiculous beliefs and summarize the backhanded mudslinging with which political opponents of Obama have attempted to defraud him as a potential presidential candidate. Personally, I think that this does its job well. Extreme? Yes. But cleverly so, and, as Obama tends to be difficult to satirize, one must be extreme in order to achieve the desired result here. As Remnick pointed out in an interview on CNN today, insulting caricatures of President Bush have graced the magazine’s cover countless times. Yet, here we have both Democrats and Republicans crying foul, and even calling for a boycott of the magazine…

Wait a minute, calling for what??

See, I thought that this was freedom of speech. Personally, I see exactly what the magazine was attempting to depict. In the same interview, Remnick says that to assume a majority of readers will not is to underestimate the intelligence of Americans at large. Granted, many will see this cover and not get past the shocking imagery…likely, the “working class” and lesser-educated people who do not fall within the target audience for the publication (as I said, its snobbish). I guess my response to this is twofold: Firstly, I’m glad it offended readers, because now it will cause them to think, especially now that the cover has been explained; sort of along the lines of explaining a poem or a painting: suddenly it takes on a new depth of meaning to the reader. Secondly, for goodness sake, we need to educate ourselves if we don’t take the time to move past a shocking cover and read what’s inside. Again, we’re so afraid of being offended or emotionally uncomfortable, so afraid that we will disagree with what we see, that we don’t want to look to begin with. That is why those who do give these things an opportunity and explore the ideas behind the cover are labeled “snobbish” or “elitist;” because they are an unfortunate minority.

To threaten a boycott of the magazine, however, concerns me a great deal. This is a small but definitive step toward state-controlled media. A slippery slope to say the least, all over the sensibilities of a public figure, who, incidentally, is fair game for such satire simply because he is a public figure: its called “fair comment and criticism” in the field of journalism.

So, before we get all up in arms about how horribly anti-American you might feel Obama is, or how horribly distasteful you may feel the cover of The New Yorker is, why don’t we take the time to explore the ideas that this conveys: the naive stupidity behind the accusations against Obama and his wife? This particular satirical endeavor paints those mis-perceptions beautifully. It seems to me that Obama would be happy about that if he took the time to move past the surface.

But then again, politics is all about how things appear on the surface.

The Unity Deception

If you ever want to have an instant debate (or argument, as it typically goes), ask someone in a leadership capacity at your local community for faith what the primary values of that community of faith should be.

Of course, you’ll always get the usual answers: faith in Christ, evangelism (wow, there’s a burn word), etc. After the basics, though, it tends to get mucky (which leads me to another thought: why can we never stick to the basics? Oh, well. Such is the human condition, I suppose).

The problem is that, at that point, preferences begin to be emphasized in the name of this ugly little word Believers like to use, “conviction.” And, before you know it, you’re hearing about how being a true follower of Christ has to look like this person or group thinks it should look like. Some denominations are notorious for this, and others disguise more carefully, but I’ve found that it almost always tends to be there.

I wonder, at what point in our history as a church did we become misled with this concept that “different = sketchy”? As different groups unite as communities of the same world-wide church to follow Christ as passionately as they can (hopefully) and as best they know how, suddenly this concept of “unity” becomes a weapon for the purpose of squashing individuality. While unity is a Biblical concept (Jesus thought is was important), we should never misconstrue it to mean that we all must look, talk, and act in the same way. Certainly, there are givens that come with the following of Christ…certain moral imperatives, if you will. But these are not excuses for confusing “unity” with a desire for an homogeneous “fitting in” with the rest of the group.

Somewhere, we seem to have forgotten that “fitting in” can, in fact, be one of the most dangerous things that a Christ-follower could do. And yet, we want so badly to ostracize different ideas and personalities, all the while wondering why we have a reputation for being intolerant. After all, differences cause us to question, to re-examine. And that’s a lot of work to do when you have a good thing going.

So much for the values of comfort.

The Cost of the Happening

A week after opening day, Karen and I finally made it The Happening, M. Night Shyamalan‘s new film, with much anticipation. Shyamalan is arguably the cinematic genius of our time, and Karen is even more of a fan than I am. Something we both noticed immediately was the 20th Century Fox clip at the beginning of the film. All of Shyamalan’s previous films have been independents. Finally, he’s made it, right? He’s arrived. His work is picked up by a major production house.

The Happening fell flat.

Don’t get me wrong, it is still beautifully filmed, avoiding gratuitous gore while still telling its disturbing story. Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel acted their roles beautifully (Deschanel’s facials left me breathless at times). But the characters were not fully developed in the script, and there were holes in the plot that don’t quite sink in until after you’ve left the theatre. Is it coincidence that his first non-independent film departs from his previous levels of excellence? Somehow, I don’t think that it is.

Creative souls are constantly wondering how they could or could have made their livings practicing the art that they love. This evening I was pondering what my life would have been like had I continued to pursue theatre as a profession after finishing my undergrad instead of assuming I would never make a living at it and moving on to a “successful professional career.” The more I consider this, however, the more I wonder if perhaps making a living practicing one’s art leads to the corruption of the artistic expression. Was it ever a best-case scenario for artists to be wealthy? When artists become so successful at what they do that their work becomes the object of mass consumption through mass media channels, their work becomes controlled by their publishers, production houses, or record labels. Suddenly, what was once quality artistic expression is directed by the lesser demon of statistics. The businesses who essentially own the artist’s work and pay the artist now determine what the artist produces based on what the masses want. Then popular culture has a tendency to go south abruptly. Even worse, those who have talent but no interest in producing high quality work are made extremely wealthy to produce unsubstantive fluff that a progressively artistically illiterate society craves. Then, we end up with the Britney Spears and American Idols of the world.

What if making a living as an artist compromises one’s art immediately? In order to make a living as an artist in a capitalist culture, it seems, the artist has to surrender to business, and certain things should never be run as businesses. I’ve watched so many gifted writers, musicians, and film-makers spiral down into the abyss of diminishing quality as they desperately attempt to uphold their creative integrity while making a living, not realizing, I think, that the two are mutually exclusive.

Such is the decline of art in industrialized culture.

This, I fear, is what has happened with Shyamalan’s film. I truly hope that it is not a trend that will continue, because to lose the brilliance of his work would be a blow to the art of cinema.

At my pessimistic best, however, I’m not really holding my breath.

Flight Plan for the Evening

Do you ever get the feeling that some people can’t see beyond their living room window?

We all know someone, likely related to us, who can’t see any of the world beyond their own experience. I have family in New England, for example, that remain largely unaware of any existence outside of New England. My grandmother’s reality was confined to her home, to a point that she actually experienced minor psychosis when removed from that environment and taken to a place with which she was not familiar. On a less extreme level, I think we’re all afflicted with this. While I make it a point to follow news from around the world and make my best attempts (although they turn out to be feeble ones) at keeping in contact with family across the country, I tend to be absorbed by what’s going on right now: what I’m writing, what I have to accomplish when I get into the office tomorrow, what Karen’s doing in the other room. The fire engine that was parked at the building across the street a little while ago, red emergency lights illuminating everything in a percussive strobe. The dishes that need washed. The trash that needs to be taken out.

While taking out that trash, I paused on the sidewalk to look up. I’m not sure why, I just did. The sky was just descending into twilight, and there was the white cloudy tail of an airplane sliding through it, miles high. Not one that was arriving at our local regional airport, but one moving past, floating over Virginia on its way to a point unknown to me, carrying other lives that are pondering all the things that you and I have pondered on similar flights: the family we’re meeting on the other end, the connecting flight we’re already missing, the kid that won’t stop kicking your seat from behind, looking down through the clouds and wondering what state or city you’re over at that moment. Suddenly, instead of my world ending at my apartment and the building across the street, I was part of something larger, an enormous community of individuals whose paths cross each other, albeit distantly at times, in a rather intricate dance. Suddenly, I am contemplating the reality behind the headlines that I read from around the globe, from reports of family difficulties hours away, from stories of trouble in the lives of my friends.

Suddenly, the trail of a plane crossing overhead takes me out of my confined little evening world, and I’m no longer an island. And then, as you read this, you’re part of my world and I’m part of yours, however briefly, and, as melodramatic as this may sound, we’re our brother’s keeper again.

Well, we never stopped being so. It just slipped our minds for a bit…

Random Movie Review

I finally got around to watching Thr3e last night, the film adaptation of Ted Dekker’s novel by Fox Faith.

I wasn’t exactly blown away.

Granted the plot was extremely compressed…I understand that much is lost when losing the narration of the thoughts and emotions of the characters. Still, it left the characters shallow and undefined, left out critical scenes, and added others that nearly destroyed the amazing ending to Dekker’s story. We won’t even discuss the poor quality of special effects.

Why is it that almost anything done with the label of “Christian entertainment” is of such lousy quality? I’m not surprised that this movie was so poor, and the fact that I’m not surprised is a sad commentary in itself. I’m sure I’m a bit oversensitive that the botched story was that of one of my favorite authors. However, the vast majority of artistic endeavors created by artists who openly profess their faith seem to be poor at best. Shouldn’t the opposite be true? Shouldn’t Believers be producing the highest quality art of our day?

Certainly, there are exceptions, and I’m not attempting to apply an overly sweeping generalization to artists of faith. I’m just left sadly disappointed at having such a great story, my first exposure to Dekker, lose so much substance on the screen.

If you haven’t watched it yet, don’t. Read the book. Its worth it.