The Decade in Movies

The first decade of the 2000s was full of transition for movies. CGI technology made things that were previously unthinkable possible. Advances in home technologies like DVDs (that’s right, they were brand new in 2000), Blu-Ray discs, and High Definition TVs changed the way people watch movies at home. The rise of companies like Netflix gave movie fans inexpensive access to an unlimited supply of movies.

The box office during the 00s was dominated by wizards, hobbits, pirates, and comic book heroes. Critical awards branched out to include more independent and foreign films and actors. There were many great movies in the 00s. In the next several posts I plan on revisiting some of what I consider to be the best movies of decade.

This will not be a “Top-10” List. I will mostly ignore movies that were huge box office hits or movies that have already had much written about them. That means you will not be seeing anything from me about movies like Gladiator, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Harry Potter movies, or The Dark Knight. My criteria are that the movie has to be technically and artistically sound (well-written; well-acted; well-directed, etc.). Besides that it must have some redeemable value, be admirably thought-provoking, or reflect, in some way, a Biblical worldview.

I will not be posting these movies in any particular order. In fact, I have not completely finalized which movies will be included and which will not. I will inevitably leave out movies from the decade that I enjoy as much or more than any of the ones I discuss. The movies I do choose to include will be some of what I consider to be the most worthwhile, well-done, and thought provoking movies of the past decade.

The Wire (Season 1)

I recently finished watching the first season of HBO’s “The Wire”, a show given the label of “best TV drama ever” by many critics. After watching just one season, it is easy for me to agree that “The Wire” is one of the most well put together TV shows of all time. It’s commitment to realism and avoidance of clichés makes “The Wire” a very engaging and interesting experience.

The main story of season one involves a detail of Baltimore police trying to make a case against a West side projects drug ring run by Avon Barksdale. Characters on both sides of this conflict are given equal time as we see how the Barksdale crew works as well as how the detectives build their case. It may sound like a typical cop show, but “The Wire” offers much more.

“The Wire” (at least season one) is about “The Game” and how it is played by all sides. This refers to The Game played by drug dealers and junkies and also The Game played by the Baltimore bureaucracies and those in power. Both games have rules and those who attempt to play outside of these rules are ostracized, marginalized, or worse.

While “The Wire” is critically lauded, it never reached a large audience. This is most likely because “The Wire” is fairly difficult to watch on a couple different levels. First, it requires careful attention by its viewers. Part of what makes it so realistic is its refusal to explain itself or hold the audience’s hand. If the characters know what is going on in “The Wire”, then the audience better figure it out. No out-of-character explanations will be given.

Take for example, a scene where two of the main detectives investigate a murder scene while uttering only one word (an expletive). Other shows would have the detectives explaining to each other what they are finding, how the bullet’s trajectory explains where the shooter was, and what this all means. In “The Wire”, the detectives can see what happened and feel no need to explain it to each other (or the audience). The viewer has to pay attention and understand what the detectives are finding and what it means.

“The Wire” is also difficult to watch because of its content. Baltimore’s inner city problems are shown in all their glory. Nothing is glamorized or romanticized in “The Wire”, including characters’ speech (which is very profane) and actions. Because characters are so well established, the show’s tragedies become much more difficult to watch. The world of “The Wire” is harsh and takes no mercy, even on “main” characters.

Despite its difficulties, “The Wire” is worth seeing. It takes an honest look at life in a 21^st Century inner city,^[1] and reveals a worldview similar to the one presented in the book of Ecclesiastes.

“Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.”—Ec. 7:20

In “The Wire” there is not a clear line between “good guys” or “bad guys”. Things are not black and white in the world it portrays. It is instead full of many different shades of gray. Even characters who desire to do the right thing find themselves handcuffed by the systems in which they operate. For example, a homicide chief hinders the detectives’ ability to make a solid case against Barksdale and his crew. He does this not because he is a “bad guy” but because what is important to him is that his clearance rate (the percentage of homicide cases closed) remains high. Having some of his detectives distracted by a lengthy Barksdale detail only hurts that.

Similarly, after painstakingly and patiently tracking down the main drug stash house the detail is ordered by their bosses to raid it. The detail is not allowed to follow the lead of the drugs leaving and entering the house or to make a stronger case against the major players because media pressure calls for action now. Seeing “dope on the table” for some press conference becomes more important than making the best case possible.

Even the detectives working the case are not presented as true heroes. They are mostly hard drinking (some are definitely alcoholics, other could be) and adulterous. Detective McNulty, season one’s most “main” character, is portrayed as a complete narcissist whose main motivation at times seems to be to show everyone how smart he is or to stick it to his boss (Ec. 4:4).

“Folly is set on many high places … I have seen servants riding on horses and princes walking as servants on the land.”—Ec. 10:6–7

“The Wire” is full of characters that have great potential if only they were in different situations. Junkie and police informant Bubbles is so charming and intelligent, even one of the detectives wonders “Why the hell is he a dope fiend?” Barksdale’s number two man, Stringer Bell, is shown taking economics classes from a community college, learning how the marketplace works only to apply these principles to his drug trade.

One of the season’s most tragic figures is young Wallace, a 16-year-old caught up in the dealing part of the Game. Wallace clearly is not cut out for this life. He is a sensitive, caring boy who reacts badly when a body that he helped find for his bosses is dumped near his window as a message to some rivals. He takes care of a group of younger kids in an abandoned apartment. Wallace should be in school, studying and enjoying life. Instead, when given a chance to start over he cannot. He knows no life other than the one he is stuck in, saying at one point that he has never even been to the East side of Baltimore.

Those in positions of authority in city institutions are not exactly “fools,” but they are not “princes” in any moral sense either. Mostly they are ambitious people who learned how to play the Game and please those in positions over them. They value their careers more than doing what is right. People who do the opposite do not progress far in the Baltimore bureaucracies.

“Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful”—Ec. 9:11

“The Wire” does not wrap up neatly like most shows. While charges are brought on most members of the Barksdale crew, most of these charges are less severe than they should be. Witnesses who were counted on drop out, and some of the major targets walk free or plead down to minor offensives. The police who worked the Barksdale case most aggressively are reassigned or passed over for promotion, while those who played the Game to their bosses’ liking receive them. In its conclusion, season one of “The Wire” reflects the reality of life seen in Ecclesiastes (3:16; 7:15) that justice is lacking. Even though some characters are brought to justice, the cost for doing so is too high.

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”—Ec. 1:9

Season one closes with a montage of street activity on Baltimore’s West side showing that The Game is being played. People who were locked up have been replaced. The minor successes of the Barksdale cases have been made irrelevant by the fact that nothing has been done to stop or even slow down the drug war. People are replaced and things continue as they always have.

---

^[1]Although the show takes place in Baltimore, it represents the problems of any major American city.

Chasing the Wind

For several hours last week no one could visit any media outlets or websites without hearing the shocking news that there was a boy in a balloon. Cable news channels gave the story continuous coverage without no breaks to talk about anything else that have happened that day. Regardless of whether or not they had anything new to report, news outlets kept the story going. This event, apparently, was the most important even in American history since the presidential inauguration.

Once the balloon landed and the boy was not found inside, authorities were perplexed. What could have happened to him? Now the media had a full-blown mystery to report. Given the situation only two things could have happened: Either (1) the Balloon Boy fell out of the balloon and is now lying dead or injured somewhere (not likely since no one tracking the balloon saw that happen) or (2) he was never in the balloon. Thankfully for the boy and his family, it was the second option.

Unfortunately this event exposed the sad state of media in America. For several hours, every single American media outlet spent all of their resources first chasing a weather balloon and then wondering why there was nothing inside. The whole story ended up being comparable to a mother losing track of her child at the mall and having mall security find him or her an hour later (something I am sure happens every day). Even if they boy had somehow been injured or died, what would have made his life any more important than any of the other 6-year-olds who die every day in the country and get no media coverage?

The only thing that made this story stand out was the balloon. Six-year-olds go missing every day without media coverage. This story was interesting because a balloon crashing to the ground with the possibility of a boy inside would make for dramatic footage. That would be different, exciting. That would get people in our voyeuristic society to turn on their TVs.

Now reports are coming out that this could have all been a hoax. The family had previously been on reality TV show. People are angry at the parents. I say this is misplaced anger. Hoaxes can only occur when people fall for them. If this ends up being a hoax, then the media only looks worse for falling for it. Keeping a constant stream of coverage on a story based on a false report from the witness of a child that his brother is in a balloon is just poor journalism.

The media has responsibility to report on stories accurately without blowing them out of proportion. There are many important things happening in the world. Unfortunately, a desire to keep viewers tuned in causes the media to report heavily on "interesting" or salacious stories and less on other stories that, while important, might not bring in as many viewers. The media has to do better than chasing hot air.

Conefssions of a Lack of Knowing

Tonight I went to rent the movie “Knowing” from Blockbuster. I was looking forward to seeing this movie after reading a few reviews touting it for posing thought provoking questions about determinism vs. free will. Are events in the universe already preordained or do they happen by chance? Do we have the ability to change the future by making choices, or are we only fulfilling what has already been determined? I enjoy thinking about questions like these and was looking forward to seeing a (hopefully) thought provoking and entertaining film.

I was in for a surprise, however, after my wife inserted the DVD. Instead of “Knowing” starting up, we were shown a menu for “Confessions of a Shopaholic”. Apparently, someone had switched the DVDs when returning the movies. This was hardly the interesting movie I had been hoping for, but it was already late and my wife had wanted to see it, so we decided to just watch it.

I was not disappointed. It was exactly what I thought it would be: formulaic, predictable, with a few laughs. It involves a young woman, Rebecca (played by Isla Fisher, who actually does a good job even though she keeps pretending to be Amy Adams), who is addicted to shopping. As she racks up thousands of dollars in credit card bills, she ironically lands a job writing a column for a financial planning company. (I know this is ironic because one of the characters helpfully points out this irony just in case the audience missed it.) She takes this job only to help her get closer to writing for a Vogue-like fashion magazine. Of course she eventually realizes she is in love with her editor (I never understand why people’s friends have to point out that they like someone in movies...don’t people know when they like someone?). There is a slight love triangle with a more successful and glamorous woman, but it turns out (gasp!) that the editor does not really like this woman, but instead likes Rebecca. However, he does not know that she is massively in debt, and it looks like all is lost when her evil bill collector finally catches up with her.

Of course, given the genre of the movie, everything ends happily. Rebecca gets the boy she wanted and learns some valuable lessons on the way. When she is offered a job at the fashion magazine, she decides that that kind of writing is not how she wants to spend her life. I learned a lot as well. I now understand that there is just no need for more than one Prada handbag (even if they are on sale). Before buying my next pair of shoes, I will stop and think, “Do I really need this?” And as I walk by store fronts, I will keep in mind the emotional scene towards the end of the movie when storefront mannequins applauded Rebecca as she resisted their temptation.

I was hoping to watch a movie last night about determinism, chance, and free will. However, maybe I learned more about that from this experience. My free will and choices were leading me to watch “Knowing”. However, I could not escape my fate. It had been determined in advance…I was going to watch “Confessions of a Shopaholic”.

Horror and Humanity

Many of today’s horror movies have very little depth. They often exist purely to display as much gory violence as possible and to find new ways to shock their viewers. Most recent scary movies are more interested in provoking squeamishness more than thought. However a couple (relatively) recent examples have much more to offer than pure thrills. The movies “28 Days Later” (2002) and “I Am Legend” (2007) are both about a virus that destroys civilization by turning anyone infected into zombie-like monsters. While the movies share very similar content, they also point towards similar views about the nature of humanity. An analysis of these views reveals that they in many ways coincide with a Christian perspective on human nature.

28 Days Later

“28 Days Later”, directed by Danny Boyle (Oscar winning director of “Slumdog Millionaire”), takes place in London and surrounding areas. Most of the movie takes place 28 days after a deadly virus has been released. This virus, called “Rage”, causes people to become mindless zombie-like creatures focused only on their murderous rage. The movie traces the story of one man’s survival. Jim (played by Cillian Murphy) was in a coma when the virus took over and awakes to find the streets of London completely deserted. He eventually meets up with a few others, and they make their way towards a military encampment near Manchester in the hopes that they have found the “answer to infection”. Once they meet up with the military encampment, they realized that not only is there no cure, but the soldiers there are motive purely by selfish interests.

The movie seems to be making a statement about the nature of humanity. It opens with newsreel footage of various riots, beatings, and general chaos. The army major remarks:

This is what I've seen in the four weeks since infection: people killing people. Which is pretty much what I saw in the four weeks before infection, and the four weeks before that, and before that, and as far back as I care to remember. People killing people. Which to my mind, puts us in a state of normality right now.

Towards the end of the film, the distinction between the infected and those who are not infected is blurred. The soldiers become more terrifying than the murderous zombies, and Jim, as he fights off the soldiers, moves and acts in a way nearly indistinguishable from the infected. The movie shows that, humanity in general is “infected”.

“28 Days Later” gives us a picture of the fallen nature of humanity. Rather than transforming people, the virus released in the movie seems to reveal humanities true nature. The movie offers very little in the way of solution. There is no cure for the infection. However, several times in the movie religious hymns play in the background. Perhaps these songs (which include “Abide with Me” and “Ave Maria”) are hints at a possible solution.

I Am Legend

“I Am Legend” is similar in many ways to “28 Days Later”. Both deal with a virus that has nearly destroyed humanity. In both movies this virus turns people into zombie-like creatures. In “I Am Legend”, however, the religious symbolism is more obvious. First, the infected in “I Am Legend” are referred to as “dark-seekers” because they are not able to go into the light. This is in line with the Biblical understanding of light and dark (see passages such as John 3:19–20, Eph 5:8, or 1 John 1:5ff). Second, “I Am Legend” offers a more obvious religious ending with a Christ-figure sacrificing himself to save humanity.

Throughout the movie, the main character Dr. Robert Neville (played by Will Smith) works on a cure for infection. Since he is one of the less than one percent immune, he uses his own blood to make the cure. In one of the movie’s final scene Robert is trapped in his lab with the “dark-seekers” trying to break through a Plexiglas wall. Having created a cure, he shouts to the creatures, “I can save you. I can save everybody.” Unwilling to listen and driven by their nature, the creatures continue to break through the glass. Eventually, Robert has to detonate a grenade, killing himself and the creatures, but enabling a woman and her son (who he met earlier in the movie) to escape with his cure.

The movie ends with this woman narrating as she enters a sanctuary delivering the cure to a scientist:

Dr. Robert Neville dedicated his life to the discovery of a cure and the restoration of humanity. On September 9th, 2012, at approximately 8:49 P.M., he discovered that cure. And at 8:52, he gave his life to defend it. We are his legacy. This is his legend. Light up the darkness.

These two movies share the view that humanity is lost. It is diseased, living in darkness and unwilling or unable to save itself. Humanity’s only hope for salvation comes through one man’s blood and sacrifice. These movies should remind us to “let our light shine” (Matt. 5:16; Luke 11:33–36).

Note: While “I Am Legend” has intense and suspenseful parts, “28 Days Later” fully earns its R rating. It is very gory at times and is not for the squeamish.