Spielberg Marathon: The Color Purple

“All my life I had to fight. I had to fight my daddy. I had to fight my uncles. I had to fight my brothers. A girl child ain’t safe in a family of men, but I ain’t never thought I’d have to fight in my own house!”

“I think it pisses God off when you walk by the color purple in a field and don’t notice it.”

“Nothing but death can keep me from it.”


From the first visuals of “The Color Purple”, two sisters running and frolicking in a field of tall grass flooded with purple flowers, we will sense this is quite a genre departure for director Steven Spielberg.  With thrillers (Duel, Jaws), alien movies (one about spiritual seeking and yearning and the other about a friendly alien), a dud of a comedy (1941), and action/adventure movies (Indiana Jones series), Spielberg moves into the category of historical drama based on a Pulitzer-prize winning book by Alice Walker working from a screenplay by Menno Meyjes.

This was my first time ever watching “The Color Purple”, a movie brimming with humanism as well as an African-American woman’s connection to God while facing tragically horrible situations and then later, joyous connections.  The film starts in 1909 in rural Georgia and winds its way through to the 1930s.

Comparatively Spielberg, who at this point in his career had demonstrated enough financial and popular success to do any movie he wanted, chose to make a very scaled down film.  “The Color Purple” take place on a small farm, with fields all around, and a white two story house that is home to the Johnson’s.  There is also a small old gospel church with an old white wooden steeple extending into the sky.

These scenes are within the frame of Celie Johnson’s (Whoopi Goldberg who gives a phenomenal Oscar-nominated performance) experienced life as she is abused and raped by her father Albert (a menacing Danny Glover).  Her life is unspeakable tragedy and yet she pens letters to God that serve as narration in the movie.

A deep connection abides between Celie and her sister Nettie (Akosua Busia).  In spite of the terror around them, they play, run through fields of flowers and carve their names onto a tree on the property.  Wide ranging abusive family drama abounds though, and Albert will force Nettie away from his home and thereby, force the separation between the two sisters.  Nettie vows that this will never stop her from seeking communication with Celie.  But the years pass and Albert always intercepts Nettie’s letters from the mailbox.

Roger Ebert named this the best movie of 1985 and “The Color Purple” was nominated for 11 Oscars including Best Picture.  For that kind of acclaim, the film is impeccably made and has moments of stunning cinematography by Allen Daviau.  The acting including Goldberg, Glover and in her first performance as Sofia, a young Oprah Winfrey is top notch.  However, there is the Spielbergian sentimentality hovering around the themes that I have complicated feelings about.

The unparalleled evil that we witness in this movie including incestuous rape is indeed terrible and one of the themes that comes out as Shug Avery (played by Margaret Avery as a singer who is taken into the Johnson home) is having a conversation with Celie is her statement: “I think it pisses God off when you walk by the color purple in a field and don’t notice it.”  In other words, even with the grotesque horror that may be a part of someone’s life, they should notice the good things.  Having never experienced anything close to what the fictional character Celie (and her sister) has, I imagine people who have lived through vicious assaults and abuse may really struggle with this aspect.  The way the movie plays this message is certainly sentimental.  I cannot imagine telling someone who has experienced trauma, sexual assault and abuse like this to just consider the good things in your life.  Just take the time to smell the roses.

That being said, Spielberg’s heart is in the right place.  He, and the writers, are attempting to give hope even in the darkest of situations.  In “Schindler’s List”, Spielberg will examine the depravity of humanity contrasted with how one guy’s actions can rise to a powerful righteousness.  The full scale of human volition and capability.   In “The Color Purple” he is navigating the depths of despair and the soaring exhilaration of joy (consider the church gospel song toward the end as well as the climax) and juxtaposing those experiences against one another.  A heavy contrast of the human experience.

So, yes, I would not call this movie perfect but it definitely is considerable.  The swelling and overwhelming soundtrack (by a host of artists) that occasionally shouts at us to feel something can be a little much but the positive aspects of this work outweigh the bad.  As I mentioned before, Spielberg after his run from the mid-1970s could have done any movie he wanted at this point in his career.  He chose a film involving a mostly African-American cast that centered around the lives of impoverished black women trying to not only survive but live with hope in the early 20th century.  The movie also contains a LGBTQ (lesbian) kissing scene right in the middle of the Reagan 80s as if Spielberg was trying to carry over some of the avant-garde cinema from the 1970s.

“The Color Purple” runs fairly long but there are real moments of beauty and reflections on how faith in God can lead people through the deepest of misery.

Lester Lauding Level:  3.5 (out of 5)

Ranking of Spielberg Movie (so far):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Review here)

Jaws (Review here)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Review here)

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (Review here)

The Color Purple

Duel (Review here)

The Post (Review here)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Review here)

The Sugarland Express (Review here)

1941 (Review here)

Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spielberg Marathon: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

“I keep telling you, you listen to me more, you live longer!”

“If you think I’m going to Delhi with you, or anyplace else after all the trouble you’ve gotten me into, think again, buster! I’m going home to Missouri where they never feed you snakes before ripping your heart out and lowering you into hot pits! This is NOT my idea of a swell time!”

“Well I always thought that archaeologists were always funny looking men going around looking for their mommies.”


Now we come to the part of Steven’s Spielberg’s filmography where he does his first sequel and also makes his strangest movie to date.  “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” is weird.  How else can you really put that?  The second installment of the adventures of America’s favorite whip-donning, fedora-wearing archeologist journeys into occultic bizarreness in Asia complete with officials eating beetles, snakes and other critters as a delicacy.  The movie mostly takes place in Shanghai and India in 1935.  Astute observers will note that this story actually takes place before the events in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (which took place in 1936).

Saying that the Temple of Doom is weird does not mean that there isn’t fun to be had.  However, as a kid, this part of the former trilogy was not watched as much as “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.  The movie opens in all seriousness as a man bangs a gong and the camera pans over to a demonic looking head, the devilish figure’s mouth wide open revealing a glowing red with smoke oozing out.  Out of the mouth emerges Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw who would later marry Spielberg in 1991 and they are still married to this day with 5 children).  Willie begins an elaborate dance number in a stark change of mood.  Other dancers join in and this begins to remind us of something out of Hollywood’s golden age.  Yes, this is actually the opening to an Indiana Jones film.

Harrison Ford as Indiana eventually enters sporting a white blazer coat to meet with a local crime boss in Shanghai, Lao Che (Roy Chiao).  There is, of course, an artifact and diamonds that Lao Che is looking for.  Dr. Jones ends up getting poisoned, Lao Che has the antidote (to a quick working poison he claims) and we witness a well-choregraphed chaotic scene of Jones trying to get the antidote while Che’s men shoot up the place (the scene goes on for awhile. Are we sure this is a quick working poison?).  To the surprise of no one, the hero is cured and escapes with Willie, falling down and through awnings from multiple stories up and gracefully landing right into the back of a fancy white car being driven by Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan who becomes his own kind of legend) to flee the clutches of the crime boss and his goons.

Action packed scenes follow including falling out of an airplane on an inflatable raft, sliding down snow-covered mountains and off a cliff into raging white water.  Indiana, Willie and Short Round wind up at a Mayapore village where the inhabitants think the trio is sent from Shiva to retrieve a stolen Sivalinga stone.  Dr. Jones believes this may be one of the five fabled Sankara stones.  The villagers point in the general direction of the Pankot Palace.  So, the plot is now underway.

The mid-section to the film is a little slow.  Dr. Jones and his fellow travelers meet some of the personalities at the Pankot Palace, there is sexual tension between Jones and Willie and then secret passage ways filled with critters and cobwebs are discovered.

The third act ramps the proceedings up again when occultic worship is discovered along with human sacrifices.  The person being sacrificed is placed into a metal cage and lowered into something that resembles a part of Dante’s hell.  Oh, and before this happens, the master of ceremonies Mola Ram (Amrish Puri) uses his hand to reach inside the poor guy’s chest and remove his heart.  Did I mention this victim is mysteriously still living as he descends into the fiery hell?  Which goes to say that there is a lot of dark voodoo-type magic going on.  There is even a voodoo doll resembling Dr. Jones which is worked into the late fight scenes.

All of that to say, this is all a little over the top.  We, as the audience, accept some supernatural turns in the Indiana Jones’ series but the first outing used those otherworldly powers in limited and effective ways.  This movie, especially in the third act, goes gangbusters with it all and the magic is certainly out of a different religious tradition then the power of God coming out of the lost ark.

Years had passed since I last watched this movie and I’m not entirely convinced it totally holds up to even my lower childhood memories of it.  “Temple of Doom” is not bad but just not great.  Especially compared with one of the greatest movies of all time (Raiders of the Lost Ark).

Another interesting note is this was one of the movies that led Hollywood’s MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) to adopt the PG-13 rating because of the violence exhibited.  Most of that case probably being made from the “heart-ripping” scene.

Fortunately, Spielberg is going to veer out of this lesser installment with “The Last Crusade” (coming up shortly in the filmography) and then make the “Temple of Doom” look like an all-time masterpiece compared with the (I don’t even want to think about this) fourth installment.

Lester Lauding Level:  3 (out of 5)

Ranking of Spielberg Movie (so far):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Review here)

Jaws (Review here)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Review here)

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (Review here)

Duel (Review here)

The Post (Review here)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

The Sugarland Express (Review here)

1941 (Review here)

Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Make America Read Again: The Feds Have Nothing On Me Edition

Above a lot of other things, read some books.

Why Liberals Win The Culture Wars (Even When They Lose Elections): A History of the Religious Battles That Define America from Jefferson’s Heresies to Gay Marriage Today by Stephen Prothero

As if that title is not a mouthful.  Upon finishing Boston Professor Stephen Prothero’s “Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars”, a huge part of me wondered how he would have written this book if it had come out after the election of Donald Trump in November 2016 as opposed to the book being released in January 2016.

That being said, this still is a fascinating read as Prothero goes back to the disputes between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams around 1800 and gives us a proverbial highlight reel of religious cultural conflict between liberals and conservatives.  Although many people (especially in 2018) consider politics and utterly nasty business, they would do well to read up on the presidential mud slinging between Jefferson and Adams.

Prothero highlights the 19th century anti-Catholic agitation, he dives deep into anti-Mormonism that highlighted much of the mid to late 1800s, runs through the prohibition debates and conservative Christians’ role in that fiasco (including Billy Sunday), and then moves to more modern debates on sex, education and art.

His main thesis is that liberals shift culture in significant ways (think gay marriage) and conservatives often react and fight against the new shifting.  Eventually, the way that liberals move the culture becomes the accepted norm among most and then the cycle renews with another issue.  While liberals move cultural change forward, conservatives win elections by appealing to fear and a negative reaction to the change.

There is probably a lot of truth to this very generalized approach although the jury is still out on who will win some of the issues of contemporary times including gun rights/control and abortion.  Abortion may actually be an example of a cultural stalemate of sorts.  Most Americans would proclaim to be “pro-life” but most Americans would also not want the government to make abortion illegal.

A complexity to consider while reading this book:  how are we defining who is conservative and who is liberal when examining a historical context?  For instance, Abraham Lincoln (a republican) issued the emancipation proclamation and freed the slaves.  Prothero seems to suggest that both the Republican party and the Democrat party have been liberal or conservative depending upon the issues of the time.

Obviously, a book like this cannot really be exhaustive but as I mentioned, Prothero does a decent job of episodically walking us through major religious and cultural clashes and giving us enough history to make his point.  I especially found fascinating some of the religious history of Mormonism that Prothero brought out including persecution of Mormons but also the Mormons acquiescing to the state (for example on the polygamy issue).

In our scorched earth, partisan times which have begun to resemble a re-run of “The Jerry Springer Show”, it is important to get historical context on our most fundamental disputes.  Down in the trenches of heated warfare between liberals and conservatives in 2018, we are in need of studying history and learning about our nation’s unique past in regard to these battles.

Lester Lauding Level:  4 (Out of 5)

Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan For Leading the Church by Gene Getz

A book that I read for my elder candidacy at Seed Church, “Elders and Leaders” is about as “exciting” a work that one could read on eldership.  More to the point, this isn’t pleasure reading.  The marketing tagline suggests that this is a Biblical, historical and cultural examination of the role of elder and other leaders in a New Testament church.  The book indeed does an examination of those roles.

Getz’s work argues for an elder team of equals and in the beginning has an analogy of a flock of birds.  There may be one bird leading the rest of the flock but sometimes that bird will fall back and need other members to help restore the tired member and another bird would need to take the lead.  According to Getz, so it goes with an elder board.

As I already mentioned, the book examines eldership in Scripture.  1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 serve as Biblical qualifications for character and traits that should be exhibited.  There is also an examination of the historical development of leadership in the New Testament church.

Getz gives practical advice on selecting leaders and the reasons why church leaders should resign or step down from their role.  Indeed, the second part of the book is basically how Getz applied the principles of eldership in his own ministry.  He respectfully admits that he became more pragmatic as situations that come up with elder boards can certainly be full of nuance.

One area that I firmly disagree with Getz on is that his church did not allow female eldership. He doesn’t delve into this debate very much at all but his focus is on male candidates only.  Being that men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27-28) and that the Apostle Paul suggested that males and females are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28), there is no reason to exclude females from the highest leadership posts in a church.  The church has hurt itself by not giving women a seat at the table of power and making decisions for service to the Body of Christ and beyond.  This isn’t a main focus of the book but I stand in contention against him on this point.

If someone is interested in exploring what the Bible has to say about eldership and a little about how church history has treated the office, they can certainly pick this up and receive information on those topics.

Lester Lauding Level:  3.5 (out of 5)

Between the World and Me By Ta-Nehisi Coates

From my standpoint, one of the great writers of our time is Ta-Nehisi Coates who was a long time columnist for The Atlantic, a book author and now a comic book writer (“Black Panther” and “Captain America”).  “Between the World and Me” is worthy of the awards and acclaim.  The book is a letter from Coates to his then 15 year old son that is somewhat autobiographical but also about race relations in American history through contemporary times.  “Between the World and Me” is raw, uncompromising, poetic and brilliant.  Coates pulls no punches in what is both a rational and emotional telling of the world his son, Samori, faces as Coates faces it himself.

The beginning of the book finds Coates discussing his childhood growing up in West Baltimore and how he was afraid.  Walking home from school, he feared certain streets and had to plot in his mind how to make it home.  Guns were pulled on him.  His dad was a member of the Black Panthers and their home was filled with books.  Upon making it through youth, Coates attended Howard University (which he calls Mecca) and recounts his formative years.

One of the more intriguing parts of the book to me was his discussion of his friend, Prince Jones, who was killed by a police officer while unarmed. Describing this event and the subsequent impact on his life, Coates discusses Jones’ commitment to Christianity and juxtaposes that faith with his own atheism.

Godless is how Coates describes himself as he believes in chaos rather then any grand order.  While reading “Between the World and Me”, his worldview becomes sad and tragic if not, sympathetically, understandable from his own experiences.  This isn’t discussed per se in the book but Coates would look at the teaching of Martin Luther King Jr as probably being naïve in parts.  “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”  Coates would say that there is no moral arc or bend and justice is never guaranteed, not even in the end.  All is chaos.

If there is any hope to the book, it is perhaps the experiences and lifestyles observed by Coates while visiting Paris, France.  I would argue though that this hope (at least to me) doesn’t seem fulfilling.  It would be interesting to press Coates more on hope:   what is hope?  Is hope even possible?  Are we condemned to a monstrous randomness or is a sense of hope attainable somehow perhaps by means of something outside of ourselves and transcendent?  Even with remaining questions, this is quite an achievement.  A book that takes a lot of us outside our own experiences and vividly shows the living reality of fellow citizens and image bearers of God.

Lester Lauding Level:   5 (out of 5)


“The classroom was a jail of other people’s interests. The library was open, unending, free.”

“But race is the child of racism, not the father. And the process of naming ‘the people’ has never been a matter of genealogy and physiognomy so much as one of hierarchy. Difference in hue and hair is old. But the belief in the preeminence of hue and hair, the notion that these factors can correctly organize a society and that they signify deeper attributes, which are indelible—this is the new idea at the heart of these new people who have been brought up hopelessly, tragically, deceitfully, to believe that they are white.”

“But all our phrasing—race relations, racial chasm, racial justice, racial profiling, white privilege, even white supremacy—serves to obscure that racism is a visceral experience, that it dislodges brains, blocks airways, rips muscle, extracts organs, cracks bones, breaks teeth. You must never look away from this. You must always remember that the sociology, the history, the economics, the graphs, the charts, the regressions all land, with great violence, upon the body.”

“You must resist the common urge toward the comforting narrative of divine law, toward fairy tales that imply some irrepressible justice. The enslaved were not bricks in your road, and their lives were not chapters in your redemptive history. They were people turned to fuel for the American machine. Enslavement was not destined to end, and it is wrong to claim our present circumstance—no matter how improved—as the redemption for the lives of people who never asked for the posthumous, untouchable glory of dying for their children. Our triumphs can never compensate for this.”

“The point of this language of ‘intention’ and ‘personal responsibility’ is broad exoneration. Mistakes were made. Bodies were broken. People were enslaved. We meant well. We tried our best. ‘Good intention’ is a hall pass through history, a sleeping pill that ensures the (American) Dream.”

“So you must wake up every morning knowing that no promise is unbreakable, least of all the promise of waking up at all. This is not despair. These are the preferences of the universe itself: verbs over nouns, actions over states, struggle over hope.”

“And they are torturing Muslims, and their drones are bombing wedding parties (by accident!), and the Dreamers are quoting Martin Luther King and exulting nonviolence for the weak and the biggest guns for the strong.”

“The forgetting is habit, is yet another necessary component of the Dream. They have forgotten the scale of theft that enriched them in slavery; the terror that allowed them, for a century, to pilfer the vote; the segregationist policy that gave them their suburbs. They have forgotten, because to remember would tumble them out of the beautiful Dream and force them to live down here with us, down here in the world. I am convinced that the Dreamers, at least the Dreamers of today, would rather live white than live free. In the Dream they are Buck Rogers, Prince Aragorn, an entire race of Skywalkers. To awaken them is to reveal that they are an empire of humans and, like all empires of humans, are built on the destruction of the body. It is to stain their nobility, to make them vulnerable, fallible, breakable humans.”

“You may have heard the talk of diversity, sensitivity training, and body cameras. These are all fine and applicable, but they understate the task and allow the citizens of this country to pretend that there is real distance between their own attitudes and those of the ones appointed to protect them. The truth is that the police reflect America in all of its will and fear, and whatever we might make of this country’s criminal justice policy, it cannot be said that it was imposed by a repressive minority. The abuses that have followed from these policies—the sprawling carceral state, the random detention of black people, the torture of suspects—are the product of democratic will. And so to challenge the police is to challenge the American people who send them into the ghettos armed with the same self-generated fears that compelled the people who think they are white to flee the cities and into the Dream. The problem with the police is not that they are fascist pigs but that our country is ruled by majoritarian pigs.”

“America understands itself as God’s handiwork, but the black body is the clearest evidence that America is the work of men.”

The Jesus I Never Knew by Philip Yancey

My second time reading “The Jesus I Never Knew” was just as illuminating to me as the first time I read the work as a high schooler.  More then any other book in my life (with the exception of the Bible), Philip Yancey’s fine book offers probing insights into who Jesus was as well as His enigmatic mysteries.

Yancey felt frustrated by portrayals of Jesus in many churches.  Jesus was held up as safe, a simplistic best friend buddy, or at worst a religious figurehead of American nationalism.  In the gospels, Yancey (who is trained as a journalist) found a Jesus quite different then these portrayals.  He examines Jesus’ Jewish as well as the culture that the Son of God lived in.  Whenever someone learns about 1st century history in the Palestine area as well as the cultural customs, we see just how incredible, fascinating and complex a figure that Jesus was.

Discussions of the Jewish conception of Messiah are included as well as the crushing reality of Jesus’ dying and how His disciples would have seen that as a failure.  Yancey handles the resurrection with a poetry presenting the world as it is and Jesus’ vision to turn the world upside down.  A theme that carries over into a discussion of God’s Kingdom and the meaningful, life changing values that are carried under that flag.

Rather then being safe, Jesus becomes a dangerous character.  Criticizing the religious elites (Pharisees and Sadducees) and having a profound grace on prostitutes, tax collectors and the poor, Jesus inaugurated a new covenant for those who want to follow Him.  Yancey brilliantly discusses law and grace in the Sermon on the Mount and uses Fyodar Dostoevsky (grace) and Leo Tolstoy (law) as analogies which illustrate the concepts very well.

Jesus was mysterious, bold, uncompromising but filled with love and grace.  He was God in human flesh who rose from the grave and conquered humanity’s greatest foes.  Yancey upholds all of these things by diving into the most significant human life ever lived.  Highly recommended reading.

Lester Lauding Level:  5 (out of 5)


“Thunderously, inarguably, the Sermon on the Mount proves that before God we all stand on level ground: murderers and temper-throwers, adulterers and lusters, thieves and coveters. We are all desperate, and that is in fact the only state appropriate to a human being who wants to know God. Having fallen from the absolute Ideal, we have nowhere to land but in the safety net of absolute grace.”

“Jesus never met a disease he could not cure, a birth defect he could not reverse, a demon he could not exorcise. But he did meet skeptics he could not convince and sinners he could not convert. Forgiveness of sins requires an act of will on the receiver’s part, and some who heard Jesus’ strongest words about grace and forgiveness turned away unrepentant.”

“We dare not invest so much in the kingdom of this world that we neglect our main task of introducing people to a different kind of kingdom, one based solely on God’s grace and forgiveness. Passing laws to enforce morality serves a necessary function, to dam up evil, but it never solves human problems.”

“The poor, the hungry, the mourners, and the oppressed truly are blessed. Not because of their miserable states, of course—Jesus spent much of his life trying to remedy those miseries. Rather, they are blessed because of an innate advantage they hold over those more comfortable and self-sufficient. People who are rich, successful, and beautiful may well go through life relying on their natural gifts. People who lack such natural advantages, hence underqualified for success in the kingdom of this world, just might turn to God in their time of need. Human beings do not readily admit desperation. When they do, the kingdom of heaven draws near.”

“Whatever you may believe about it, the birth of Jesus was so important that it split history into two parts. Everything that has ever happened on this planet falls into a category of before Christ or after Christ.”

‘Projecting myself back into Jesus’ time, I try to picture the scene. The poor, the sick, the tax collectors, sinners, and prostitutes crowd around Jesus, stirred by His message of healing and forgiveness. The rich and powerful stand on the sidelines, testing Him, spying, trying to entrap Him. I know these facts about Jesus’ time, and yet, from the comfort of a middle-class church in a wealthy country like the U.S., I easily lose sight of the radical core of Jesus’ message.’

‘To its shame, Christian history reveals unrelieved attempts to improve on the way of Christ. Sometimes the church joins hands with a government that offers a shortcut path to power. ‘The worship of success is generally the form of idol worship which the devil cultivates most assiduously,’ wrote Helmut Thielicke about the German church’s early infatuation with Adolf Hitler. ‘We could observe in the first years after 1933 the almost suggestive compulsion that emanates from great successes and how, under the influence of these successes, men, even Christians, stopped asking in whose name and at what price…’

‘The cross redefined God as One who was willing to relinquish power for the sake of love. Jesus became, in Dorothy Solle’s phrase, ‘God’s unilateral disarmament.’  Power, no matter how well-intentioned, tends to cause suffering. Love, being vulnerable, absorbs it. In a point of convergence on a hill called Calvary, God renounced the one for the sake of the other.’

‘There are two ways to look at human history, I have concluded. One way is to focus on the wars and violence, the squalor, the pain and tragedy and death. From such a point of view, Easter seems like a fairy tale exception, a stunning contradiction in the name of God. That gives some solace, although I confess that when my friends died, grief was so overpowering that any hope in an afterlife seemed somehow thin and insubstantial. There is another way to look at the world. If I take Easter as the starting point, the one incontrovertible fact about how God treats those whom He loves, then human history becomes the contradiction and Easter a preview of ultimate reality. Hope then flows like lava beneath the crust of life. This, perhaps, describes the change in the disciples perspective as they sat in locked rooms discussing the incomprehensible events of Easter Sunday. In one sense nothing had changed: Rome still occupied Palestine, religious authorities still had a bounty on their heads, death and evil still reigned outside. Gradually, however, the shock of recognition gave way to a long slow undertow of joy. If God could do that…’





Posted in Book Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spielberg Marathon: E.T. The Extra Terrestrial

“Elliott, I don’t think he was left here intentionally, but his being here is a miracle, Elliott. It’s a miracle and you did the best that anybody could do. I’m glad he met you first.”

“E.T. phone home.”

“I’ll… be… right… here.”


Is there any more of an iconic shot of the dream-like possibility of cinema then a kid’s bike (complete with alien in a basket) being silhouetted against the full moon over a forested landscape?  Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extra Terrestrial is yet another masterpiece and I would argue one that has had one of the longest reaching imprints on Spielberg’s reputation.  He has dealt with awe and wonder before, brilliantly in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but here is a more indelible child-like stamp.

Most of the scenes in this movie, a viewer will notice, are shot from the perspective of Elliott (Henry Thomas) or E.T.  After E.T and his race of aliens land on earth followed by circumstances that cause the spaceship to leave quickly, E.T. becomes stranded on this strange world and immediately at mercy to adults with trucks and gadgets and gizmos.  The adults who run around in the brush on a hill in California (above Los Angeles) are never really defined.  We don’t know what many of their faces look like nor do we know their names and we cannot even always make out what they are saying.  Their scientific looking instruments are seen and the flashlights piercing the darkness creating one of those famous Spielberg trademarks of high contrast lighting.  Why did Spielberg shoot the film like this?  Because the towering adults running around in the tall grass are not important except to communicate an imminent threat but short little E.T’s viewpoint is the primary concern.

E.T. will wander into the shed in the backyard of a suburban California home.  The split-level kind in a seemingly endless real estate development.  Young Elliott becomes aware of a visitor hiding in the shed and is shocked to encounter a gentle, alien presence.  He coaxes E.T. into the house with (do you remember it?) Reese’s Pieces.  Eventually, the siblings get introduced to the extra terrestrial including Gertie (a crazy young Drew Barrymore) and Michael (Robert MacNaughton).  The secret is kept from the Mary, Elliott’s mom (Dee Wallace) and other adults.

The bond that develops between Elliott and E.T runs deep.   The alien possesses powers of telepathy so Elliott experiences what E.T feels.  Being that is the case, it is a film about empathy and a good chunk of sub-thematic elements is Elliott’s longing desire for a father.  Elliott’s kinship with E.T. supplants the loss he feels as a result of a broken home.  NY Times film critic AO Scott writes:  “But Elliott, the suburban child who befriends the galactic wanderer, suffers in his own way from the want of a home. A middle sibling, a child of a broken home, a latchkey kid, he seems even amid the clutter and clatter of his tract house every bit as lonely — as alienated — as his visitor. In the final scene, as E.T. is reunited with his kind and he and Elliott say their tearful goodbyes, we become aware, almost subliminally, that another reunion has taken place. The frayed bonds among Elliott…, Gertie…, Michael…and their mother, Mary…, seem newly strong and tensile; the family, like the yellow flower on the kitchen table (a potted metaphor, but a lovely one nonetheless), has blossomed in the presence of a stranger. Elliott is also, at last, going home.”

Much has been written about Spielberg’s parents divorcing when he was young and Spielberg reportedly having an imaginary alien friend that helped him get through that troubling time.  The film critic, Gary Arnold with The Washington Post, called this film “essentially a spiritual autobiography” by Spielberg.

Of all the Spielberg canonical movies that have come before including “Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “1941” (let’s forget about that last one shall we?), this one seems more central to who he is as a movie-maker or at least what his reputation has become in Hollywood.  I would not say E.T. is his best movie of that lot but the child-like wonder that we experience when we all think about Spielberg very much started here.

E.T. deals with weighty family themes, is suspenseful, has science fiction elements and is surprisingly really funny.  The movie is a true cross section of genre and we can sense how personal it is to Spielberg.  To the millions of people who have seen the movie, it is pure magic in the best sense of the word.

Lester Lauding Level:  4.5 (out of 5)

Ranking of Spielberg Movie (so far):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Review here)

Jaws (Review here)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Review here)

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial

Duel (Review here)

The Post (Review here)

The Sugarland Express (Review here)

1941 (Review here)

Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Spielberg Marathon: Raiders of the Lost Ark

“Snakes. Why’d it have to be snakes?”

“All your life has been spent in pursuit of archaeological relics. Inside the Ark are treasures beyond your wildest aspirations. You want to see it opened as well as I. Indiana, we are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history.”

“The Bible speaks of the Ark leveling mountains and laying waste to entire regions. An army which carries the Ark before it… is invincible.”


If we sidestep Steven Spielberg’s previous outing “1941”, we can see within the span of 6 or so years, Spielberg had completely changed the landscape of popular culture forever.  Indiana Jones is a legend.  A character burned into the memory recesses of my childhood imagination.  A looming figure that I still revisit.  A hero who is undaunted by danger and courageous in the face of danger that include Nazi’s, booby traps, and outsized rolling boulders.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is so famous and well-known that it is impossible for me to know a world where the movie did not exist.  I was all of one years old when the film came out.  However, one day in the past, people (namely George Lucas and Philip Kaufman and an uncredited Spielberg) came up with this story inspired by old Saturday matinee serials and comic book plots.  Can you think of anything like this before the 1981 release?

Put simply, this is one of the best action/adventure movies of all time if not the greatest.  While the film never takes itself seriously, it does take seriously the cascading thrill ride that is presented to the audience.  The action is intensely relentless save for a few moments we are spared for the plot details to be discussed.

The action starts in the jungles of Peru where Dr. Indiana Jones and his crew are hunting for the Chachapoyan Fertility Idol.  They brave eerie caverns of cobwebs with tarantulas, hidden spears, fall away floors leading to deep pits, and falling concrete slab doors.  Dr. Jones is betrayed by his fellow traveler and then escapes the aforementioned rolling boulder.  After being chased by the Hovito people in the moments post Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman) stealing the relic from him, he swims out to a biplane to fly away into the sunset.  He lets out a scream upon seeing a “pet snake” Ritchie sharing a ride with him.  “I hate snakes!”  Dr. Jones is fearless in the face of danger except for when those moments involve snakes.

Returning to his professor post at Marshall College, Dr. Jones is interviewed by two army intelligence officers who tell him that the Nazi’s are searching for his old mentor, Abner Ravenwood.  This is one of the breaks in the action as we learn that Ravenwood is an expert in the ancient city of Tanis in Egypt and possesses an ancient headpiece of the staff of Ra.  Dr. Jones deduces that the Nazi’s are searching for the legendary ark of the covenant.  Comments are made about the ark being able to level mountains and lay waste to entire cities.  A Hitler and his Third Reich on the ascendancy in 1936 would become indestructible with such power.  “Lightning. Fire. Power of God or something,” exclaims Dr. Jones.  How could Indiana Jones not get involved?

The screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan has our hero venturing to Nepal, the deserts of Egypt, a couple of forgotten tombs, a secret submarine base and a remote island.  There is a gunfight in a bar that is on fire, cat and mouse foot races through Cairo, a pit of snakes, mysterious relics, an old fashioned auto chase along cliffs, and a climatic scene documenting the wrath of God (Spielberg sticks it to the Nazi’s).  Like the closest of friends, John Williams top notch score accompanies us on these adventures with his heroic theme (world famous) and slower music that communicates a more mysterious aura as Dr. Jones uncovers more important secrets.  One could travel the world over and not know any other languages but if they hummed the Indiana Jones theme music, how many human connections could they make on that basis alone?

There is a love interest, Marion Ravenwood (brilliantly played by Karen Allen).  She is the daughter of Abner and has an unpleasant history with Dr. Jones.  Yes, she becomes a damsel-in-distress in the course of the movie but she has a strong character and nature.  Several scenes show her drinking big grown men under the table and grinning as she takes their money.  A person of secrets, her relationship to Indiana Jones is unique to other action film characters.

Rarely do they ever make movies like this especially any more.  The movie is nearly perfect and yet with the minor imperfections, we would not change a thing.  Imagine the uproar if Spielberg pulled what George Lucas did with the Star Wars series and updated the special effects?  There would (hopefully) be a revolt.  The special effects at the end, when the ark is opened and the Nazi’s faces melt off or explode, are certainly dated but the scene adds to this film’s timeless character.

Even in Spielberg’s considerable filmography which contains multiple masterpieces and several films very close to that status, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is simply (and perhaps easily) one of his finest films.  Deservedly one of the all time greats.

Lester Lauding Level:  5 (out of 5)

Ranking of Spielberg Movie (so far):

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Jaws (Review here)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Review here)

Duel (Review here)

The Post (Review here)

The Sugarland Express (Review here)

1941 (Review here)

Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Make America Read Again: We’re Still Alive So Grab A Book

Books, books and more books.

Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the Overpowering Urge to Help by Larissa MacFarquhar

Here is a book that is right up my alley as New Yorker columnist Larissa MacFarquhar tackles the ethics of altruism and the relativistic minefield of utilitarian ethics.  What does it mean to devote yourself to helping others even above and beyond yourself?

Toward the beginning of the book, MacFarquhar throws out an ethical dilemma.  If your mother was drowning in a lake and at the same time two strangers were drowning, who would you save and why?  This assumes you would only have time to save one set.  The emotional response would be, of course, to save your mom.  This is what I would do.  However, if mom is saved, two lives end up being lost rather than one.  There are other complexities to consider with this question:  what is someone’s relationship to their mom?  Was their mom abusive toward them?  In some cases, people may save the two strangers.  How are principles of altruism applied in a case like this?

MacFarquhar relies heavily on the ethical paradigms of Australian philosopher Peter Singer who, as mentioned above, is an ethical utilitarian.  I have my serious issues with Mr. Singer which are especially prevalent in “Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics“.  MacFarquhar doesn’t delve much into that specific work of Singer’s but is more broadly focused on his utilitarian principle of doing good to the most amount of people possible.

Jesus is quoted with his commandments “taking up your cross and following Him” and “denying ourselves” but to what extreme do we take those teachings of Christ?  That is the question that MacFarquhar, a secular writer, is asking.

The book is full of real life profiles of “do-gooders”.  The author highlights people who make a certain amount of money but cut their own living expenses down to $17,000 or $18,000 a year to give more money away to those in need.  A Methodist minister opens her dwelling up to the homeless, a man in India turns his back on his own privilege and founds a leper colony, a woman braves credible threats of rape to start a women’s health clinic in Nicaragua, a couple who adopts 20 something children and more accounts.

The great thing about “Strangers Drowning” is the book is never preachy.  MacFarquhar is not exhorting anyone to necessarily be exactly like anyone that she profiles but she is asking us to think.  There is actually some detachment from the author herself because I don’t recall even MacFarquhar injecting her own personal thoughts (at least directly) regarding the actions of her subjects.

We are also taken through the philosophies of Adam Smith, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin and Maximilien Robespierre.  MacFarquhar especially quotes Immanuel Kant: “It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage.”

This is a compelling and extremely haunting book.  One of the more thought-provoking reads I have read in awhile.  My primary ethical system, as a Christian, is not centered around utilitarianism but there are some profound things here to contemplate.

Lester Lauding Level:  4.5 (out of 5)


“Giving up alcohol is an asceticism for the modern do-gooder, drinking being, like sex, a pleasure that humans have always indulged in, involving a loss of self-control, the renunciation of which marks the renouncer as different and separate from other people.  To drink, to get drunk, is to lower yourself on purpose for the sake of good fellowship. You abandon yourself, for a time, to life and fate. You allow yourself to become stupider and less distinct. Your boundaries become blurry: you open your self and feel connected to people around you. You throw off your moral scruples, and suspect it was only those scruples that prevented the feeling of connection before. You feel more empathy for your fellow, but at the same time, because you are drunk, you render yourself unable to help him; so, to drink is to say, I am a sinner, I have chosen not to help.”

“The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human individuals…It is too readily assumed…that the ordinary man only rejects [saintliness] because it is too difficult: in other words, that the average human being is a failed saint. It is doubtful whether this is true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings.”

“The aim of an artist is not to solve a problem irrefutably, but to make people love life in all its countless, inexhaustible manifestations.”

“An extreme sense of duty seems to many people to be a kind of disease – a masochistic need for self-punishment, perhaps, or a kind of depression that makes its sufferer feel unworthy of pleasure…In fact, some do-gooders are happy, some are not. The happy ones are happy for the same reasons anyone is happy – love, work, purpose. It is do-gooders’ unhappiness that is different – a reaction not only to humiliation and lack of love and the other usual stuff, but also to knowing that the world is filled with misery, and that most people do not really notice or care, and that, try as they might, they cannot do much about either of those things. What do-gooders lack is not happiness but innocence. They lack that happy blindness that allows most people, most of the time, to shut their minds to what is unbearable. Do-gooders have forced themselves to know, and keep on knowing, that everything they do affects other people, and that sometimes (though not always) their joy is purchased with other people’s joy. And, remembering that, they open themselves to a sense of unlimited, crushing responsibility.”

“The life of a zealous do-gooder is a kind of human sublime — by which I mean that, although there is a hard beauty in it, the word “beautiful” doesn’t capture the ambivalence it stirs up. A beautiful object — a flower, a stream — is pleasing in a gentle way, inspiring a feeling that is like love. A sublime object, such as a mountain or a rough sea, inspires awe, but also dread. Confronting it, you see its formidable nobility, and at the same time you sense uncomfortably that you would not survive in it for long. It is this sense of sublime that I mean to apply to do-gooders: to confront such a life is to feel awe mixed with unease — a sense that you wouldn’t survive in that life for long, and might not want to.”

Al Franken, Giant of the Senate by Al Franken

When the marketing press for this book came out, I became curious about reading “Al Franken, Giant of the Senate” because of the excerpts I had seen of comedian/author/Senator Al Franken taking down Ted Cruz in hilarious fashion.  And that part of the book is good if only a chapter or so.  Franken’s latest book though is a memoir that was released before the revelations that he had groped and harassed women.  Those accusations and subsequent evidence chased him from his Senate seat in early 2018.  Rightfully so.

The narrative follows the beginning of Franken’s career as a comedian and a founding writer on Saturday Night Live.  He has chapters devoted to SNL without drugs and SNL with the drugs.  More interestingly, he talks of his friendships with other legendary comedians including John Belushi and Chris Farley.

As a satire writer, he also penned opinion books where it is hard to tell what his political perspective is (sarcasm) including his first:  “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations” and the other famous work:  “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.”

In 2007, he quit his radio show on Air America Radio and announced his candidacy for United States Senate against incumbent Norm Coleman.  This led to a razor thin win for Franken of 312 votes.  There were recounts and cases taken to the Supreme Court but Franken was declared the winner after a long grueling process.

A fascinating part of the book is hearing Franken discuss how Republicans used his past humor against him.  Political opponents would bring up lines he said in a stand-up routine and pull them from a comedy context.

After offering his origin story, the rest of the book finds Franken talking about life in the Senate including how often they have to dial for dollars.  Providing basic glimpses of what it takes to pass major legislation, he provides a basic window into the issues that he personally supports.  The episode where he rolled his eyes during a Senate speech by Mitch McConnell is discussed as well as their strange friendship.  John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Sessions also come up as colleagues that Franken joked around with to one degree or another.  All of that to say on the inside baseball stuff, the chapter on Ted Cruz is, by far, the funniest and most entertaining.

Taking us right through the election of Donald Trump, a weakness of the book is Franken’s reliance on falling back on all too familiar liberal talking points.  When this happens, there isn’t much elaboration or specific defenses of his policy positions.  I understand this is not a policy book by any stretch but a little more discussion on why Franken believes what he believes would have helped some of the writing from sounding so trite.

In summary, an interesting life and probably one of the funnier books one will read that is written by a Senator.

Lester Lauding Level:  3.5 (out of 5)


“I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz…The problem with Ted isn’t that he’s humorless. It isn’t even his truly reprehensible far-right politics. No, the problem with Ted—and the reason so many senators have a problem with Ted—is simply that he is an absolutely toxic coworker. He’s the guy in your office who snitches to corporate about your March Madness pool and microwaves fish in the office kitchen. He is the Dwight Schrute of the Senate.”

“Virtually everyone in the world believes that climate change is real and is caused by human beings, except Republicans in the United States. Especially the people who would know best: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity, and I suspect the other 3 percent are being paid by the fossil fuel industry.”

“But I really think that if we don’t start caring about whether people tell the truth or not, it’s going to be literally impossible to restore anything approaching a reasonable political discourse. Politicians have always shaded the truth. But if you can say something that is provably false, and no one cares, then you can’t have a real debate about anything.

“But now we seem to have entered an era where getting caught lying openly and shamelessly, lying in a manner that insults the intelligence of both your friends and foes, lying about lying, and lying for the sake of lying have all lost their power to damage a politician. In fact, the ‘Trump Effect’ yields the opposite result: Trump supporters seem to approve of the fact that he lies constantly, including to them.”

“Former Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank once said, ‘I only voted once for someone who believes in 100 percent of what I believe. And that’s when I voted for myself—the first time.’”

“Today’s Congress is a polarized, dysfunctional body, rendered helpless by partisanship, more focused on scoring short-term political points than on solving our nation’s urgent problems. In short, the Washington of the past decade has been awash in nincompoopery.

“Politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of people’s lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice. -Paul Wellstone (Minnesota Senator, Al Franken predecessor).”

Strengthsfinder 2.0 by Tom Rath

Usually, I’m not a big fan of personality-type books.  Supposedly, they are a general unveiling into what motivates a specific person or how that person likes to communicate.  I operate on the assumption that human beings are complicated and not only may their personality, giftings, or style of communication change over time, it may change depending on what group they are hanging out in.

Admittedly though, “Strengthsfinder” has an interesting concept.  The author, Tom Rath, spends the beginning of the book ripping the movie “Rudy” (of all things).  His problem with the film is obviously not an artistic critique but the thematic message.  Rath argues persuasively that Rudy given his size and talents should not have been a football player.  The whole climax leading up to the sack at the end was built on someone performing a task that they were not good at.  While Rudy’s strength was not football, his talents lay elsewhere and he was missing out on an opportunity to connect with what he would be truly great at doing and further developing those skills.  Hence, Strengthsfinder.

This is a fascinating concept. Our culture highly values a liberal arts education.  We expose students to a lot of different fields with the goal in mind of making someone “well-rounded” with knowledge.  Rath is not necessarily saying to get rid of that but he would argue that we should spend more time honing in on the specific gifts and talents that individuals have.  Once we find those talents, that individual (rather then learning a bunch of other general information) should focus on refining and shaping those particular gifts.

Personally, I like the spirit of what he is saying but I’m not sure I’m fully onboard.  Even if I have gifts in certain areas, I actually may be able to refine and strength those gifts by learning about other fields or disciplines.

With that being said, I would still rank this as one of the more compelling personality books that comes with an internal test that I have read.

Lester Lauding Level:  3 (out of 5)


“From the cradle to the cubicle, we devote more time to our shortcomings than to our strengths.”

“When we’re able to put most of our energy into developing our natural talents, extraordinary room for growth exists. So, a revision to the “You-can-be-anything-you-want-to-be” maxim might be more accurate: You cannot be anything you want to be—but you can be a lot more of who you already are.”

“Talent (a natural way of thinking, feeling, or behaving) × Investment (time spent practicing, developing your skills, and building your knowledge base) = Strength (the ability to consistently provide near-perfect performance)”

“We were tired of living in a world that revolved around fixing our weaknesses. Society’s relentless focus on people’s shortcomings had turned into a global obsession. What’s more, we had discovered that people have several times more potential for growth when they invest energy in developing their strengths instead of correcting their deficiencies.”

The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Friedman

For our times, I decided to pick up New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Flat” which is the bible for globalism. Friedman is an unapologetic “radical free trader” and his metaphor for a flat world applies to economic commerce around the globe. Friedman argues that the internet especially has made a more level playing field wherein competitors have a roughly equal opportunity to jump into the global market and compete.

He also highlights corporations who have sent jobs to other countries as having an impact of lifting the living conditions of people in those countries. Embedded in those moving jobs overseas is how companies have adjusted as well (for instance, Walmart’s delivery chain that helps them keep stores stocked based on a sophisticated computer model which they invented).

Friedman introduces ten “flatteners” that he believes are radically reshaping the world, rapidly changing global capitalism and causing market upheavals. They are: the collapse of the Berlin Wall (11/9/1989), Netscape (1995 mass introduction to the internet), workflow software, uploading, outsourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, insourcing (using UPS as a prime example here), informing (Google, Wikipedia, etc), and the steroids (voice over internet protocol, file sharing, etc).

The book is exhaustively researched and is packed with information but my main criticism of the book is I don’t think Friedman dealt thoroughly with the negative aspects of the world flattening or globalization. An example would be what some commentators have spoken about with the election of Donald Trump in the US. One of the arguments for why Trump was elected is the disappearance of jobs in the heartland USA (Midwest) as they have gone overseas for cheaper costs for the business owners. Job displacement has been a huge cost of globalization and I don’t think is fully or properly dealt with by Friedman.

Also, there are certainly parts of the world that have become more economically developed as a result of the world flattening however, there is still exploitation of labor and has been a lot of reporting on that end. China is one of the biggest human rights abusers related to labor and large, multi-national corporations take advantage of the cheaper costs. Friedman’s excuses or arguments against these things that have happened are not at all convincing.

I would agree generally with Friedman that a greater economic cooperation across the world is a good thing for the world. Future generations will have to address the matters of a staggering inequality and exploitation but I will, again, generally agree with him bringing up the Dell theory of conflict prevention. That is if businesses and countries are making money off each other or are economically interdependent, this lowers the odds of a war. “The Dell Theory stipulates: No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.”

I would recommend the read for those interested in the subject matter and the political and economic implications of globalism. I just think Friedman’s counter arguments to the fallout were not convincing.

Lester Lauding Level:  3 (out of 5)


“It has always been my view that terrorism is not spawned by the poverty of money; it is spawned by the poverty of dignity. Humiliation is the most underestimated force in international relations and in human relations. It is when people or nations are humiliated that they really lash out and engage in extreme violence.”

“One of the newest figures to emerge on the world stage in recent years is the social entrepreneur. This is usually someone who burns with desire to make a positive social impact on the world, but believes that the best way of doing it is, as the saying goes, not by giving poor people a fish and feeding them for a day, but by teaching them to fish, in hopes of feeding them for a lifetime. I have come to know several social entrepreneurs in recent years, and most combine a business school brain with a social worker’s heart. The triple convergence and the flattening of the world have been a godsend for them. Those who get it and are adapting to it have begun launching some very innovative projects.”

“I once heard Jerry Yang, the cofounder of Yahoo!, quote a senior Chinese government official as saying, ‘Where people have hope, you have a middle class.’ I think this is a very useful insight. The existence of large, stable middle classes around the world is crucial to geopolitical stability, but middle class is a state of mind, not a state of income. That’s why a majority of Americans always describe themselves as ‘middle class,’ even though by income statistics some of them wouldn’t be considered as such. “Middle class” is another way of describing people who believe that they have a pathway out of poverty or lower-income status toward a higher standard of living and a better future for their kids.”

“Communism was a great system for making people equally poor – in fact, there was no better system in the world for that than communism. Capitalism made people unequally rich.”

“No matter what your profession – doctor, lawyer, architect, accountant – if you are an American, you better be good at the touchy-feely service stuff, because anything that can be digitized can be outsourced to either the smartest or the cheapest producer.”

“When Muslim radicals and fundamentalists look at the West, they see only the openness that makes us, in their eyes, decadent and promiscuous. They see only the openness that has produced Britney Spears and Janet Jackson. They do not see, and do not want to see, the openness – the freedom of thought and inquiry – that has made us powerful, the openness that has produced Bill Gates and Sally Ride. They deliberately define it all as decadence. Because if openness, women’s empowerment, and freedom of thought and inquiry are the real sources of the West’s economic strength, then the Arab-Muslim world would have to change. And the fundamentalists and extremists do not want to change.”

“Culture is nested in context, not genes.”

“To learn how to learn, you have to love learning—or you have to at least enjoy it—because so much learning is about being motivated to teach yourself.”

“No low-trust society will ever produce sustained innovation.”

2 Corinthians by Colin Kruse

Located within the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series, “2 Corinthians” by Colin Kruse is informative while not being an overwhelming read.  At 224 pages, it is brisk as commentaries usually go but still packed with quality information relating to interpreting the Pauline epistle. A real strength of the book is Kruse’s historical set up of 2 Corinthians.  He not only describes the history and culture of the area as well as going into Greece’s philosophical ideas at the time, he delves fairly in depth to the textual critiques of 2 Corinthians.  For instance, our 1 Corinthians is probably actually the second letter to the church (the true 1 Corinthians being lost to history).  Our 2 Corinthians is more than likely the fourth letter to the church as Paul references a “severe letter” (as the potential third) that he regretted sending.  As Kruse explains in his vital setup, many scholars believe that the severe letter (3rd Corinthians) is perhaps an appendix to the 2 Corinthian letter (perhaps chapters 10-13 and maybe mixed in elsewhere).  Chapters 10-13 of the letter represent a tonal shift in Paul’s narrative in comparison with the rest of the book.  Anyways, for anyone studying this famous epistle, I highly recommend Kruse’s commentary on the historical and textual background.

Kruse walks through the epistle verse by verse bringing out the meaning of the words as well as the contextual and historical backdrop.  This isn’t a technical commentary and bridges the gap between a more inspiration based commentary and a technical (must- know-Koine-Greek in order to understand) commentary.  He is not afraid to bring out Greek words and discuss the scholarship but all of this is easy to understand for the reader.

The minor thing that annoyed me while reading the commentary (while studying for multiple sermon messages in 2 Corinthians) is that Kruse doesn’t always quote the verse before launching into his explanation.  Sometimes he just lists the verse number.  I suppose that Tyndale probably did this because they realize that people studying this commentary would be using multiple translations.  I still would have liked to seen the whole verse quoted out every time.

For me, this is pretty close to the epitome of what a commentary should be.  The reader isn’t lost in trying to parse Greek words and sentence structures but is being informed about the cultural climate and the use of the words as it is important to understanding the epistle.

Lester Lauding Level:  4.5 (out of 5)


Posted in Book Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spielberg Marathon: 1941

“Ladies and gentlemen, every where I look… soldiers are fighting sailors, sailors are fighting Marines! Directly in front of me, I see a flying blond floozy! Everywhere I look… everywhere, pure pandemonium… pandemonium!”

“You ain’t gettin’ shit out of me. I’ve been constipated all week and there ain’t a damn thing you can do about it!”

“What the hell do you people think you’re doing? You’re acting like a bunch of Tojo stooges! What do you wanna do, put Yamamoto in the White House? The Axis is crawling like a slime all over Europe! I can’t believe it, Americans fighting Americans! We got the lousy Huns to fight!”


What was Steven Spielberg thinking is the poignant response after watching his late 70s offering “1941”?  An attempted screwball comedy, “1941” is a piping hot, steaming pile of shit.  Within it’s omnipresent stench that stretches for over 2 hours and 20 minutes is that looming question of “what happened”?  The director who helmed “Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and would go on to direct “Raiders of the Lost Ark” has this terrible film sandwiched into his filmography.  The three mentioned movies are considered not only some of the best movies in American history but also of all time.  What the hell is with “1941”?

I can only speculate that Spielberg was looking to expand his genre reach.  With “Jaws” he had created a masterful horror/suspense movie.  “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is definitely a drama but one that was more cerebral than other movies about alien visitation and which also featured a spiritual longing at its center.  I guess “1941” was supposed to be Spielberg’s venture into comedy.  It failed.

On paper, Spielberg had quite a lineup.  The stars of “1941” include Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi and John Candy (before he was really famous).  Two of those three guys had come up through the Saturday Night Live circuit and all are really funny.  The puzzling thing about “1941” is there is so much going on with the plot that the talent of these comedians is completely wasted.  Belushi himself doesn’t even have many lines or scenes in a movie that spans over two hours.

The storyline involves the days in December after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.  Hysterical Californians are worried about a Japanese invasion on the west coast so they look to make the coast defensible against this possible encounter.

In the beginning of the film, a woman runs on the sand, takes off her clothes and jumps into the ocean for a swim.  We note that Haystack Rock (the famous natural monument of Cannon Beach, OR) is lurking in the background.  The woman moves out into the ocean and even lifts her leg in the air before sinking down beneath the waves.  What does this remind us of?  The opening scene of “Jaws” with Spielberg mimicking himself.  I had never seen “1941” before and I leaned over to Michelle and said, “Instead of encountering a great white shark, this woman is going to be intercepted by a Japanese submarine.”  This was so obvious.  The submarine is commanded by Commander Akiro Mitamura (Toshiro Mifune) and his fellow sailors talk amongst themselves about wanting to attack Hollywood- the perfect target.

Cut back and forth between soldiers in the Los Angeles area trying to set up a defense including Sgt. Frank Tree (Aykroyd), Private Foley (Candy), Col. Madman Maddox (Warren Oates), Captain Loomis Birkhead (Tim Matheson) and others.  Designated to try and keep the public calm is Major General Joseph Stilwell (Robert Stack, the creepy host of Unsolved Mysteries).  The military ends up taking over the Douglas home which is on a cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean.  The residents of the home, Ward (Ned Beatty) and Joan (Lorraine Gray) don’t have much of an option.

The film distracts itself with an massive amount of subplots and way too much going on.  There is the action described above and dance sequences and crazy guys (Eddie Deezen and Murray Hamilton) who are stuck on a Ferris Wheel (eventually attacked by the submarine) for most of the running time.  This bouncing around doesn’t leave an appropriate amount of time for any character development.

There really isn’t much of note in this movie.  The dog fight over Los Angeles involving John Belushi whizzing around in his World War II plane is probably a highlight but then it makes me wish he were in the movie more.  The screenplay (by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale) is supremely obsessed with sexual innuendo related to airplanes.  The amount of running time spent on characters making jokes about planes gearshifts and functions while, wink-wink, comparing those to sex acts becomes overwhelmingly obnoxious.  Moreover, the rape jokes and racist language tank the proceedings even further.

Toward the end of the movie, I mentioned to Michelle that I think we had found a Spielberg movie worse than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (yes, I’m going to make myself watch it down the line) and that is no easy feat.  Spielberg has reportedly said about “1941”: “I don’t dislike the movie at all. I’m not embarrassed by it.”  He should be.

Lester Lauding Level:  1.5 (out of 5)

Ranking of Spielberg Movie (so far):

Jaws (Review here)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Review here)

Duel (Review here)

The Post (Review here)

The Sugarland Express (Review here)


Posted in Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments