Movie Review- Crazy Heart

In another context, I might have enjoyed this film more than I did. Here's what I mean: I watched this film with really high hopes. All the reviews I heard, both from professional critics and laypersons alike, was that this film, as well as the performance by Jeff Bridges, was this year's The Wrestler. Had I not just recently see that film, I probably would have liked it better than I did, as I stated above. This is not to say the film was terrible, because it was actually quite good. It just wasn't what I needed or wanted at the time.

The film tells the story of Bad Blake (Bridges), a country music singer who has (to put it mildly) seen better days. He is just about broke and has taken to playing in bowling alleys and taverns. At an appearance in Santa Fe, NM he encounters a journalist, named Jean Craddock. They begin a romantic relationship. Without giving away too much of the plot, suffice it to say that things are wonderful for a while, then they go seriously awry.

The performance of Jeff Bridges is very good; enough to earn him an Academy Award. Outside of that, I was underwhelmed by the film. But, it was interesting to see Colin Farrell play a country music singer. I saw few, if any comparisons to The Wrestler, outside of a story about a man trying to come to grips with something.

All is not lost, however. I really enjoyed the soundtrack. It reminded just how much I love traditional country music. And I was impressed that the actors (Bridges and Farrell) did their own singing. The results are incredible. Not surprisingly the song "The Weary Kind" won an Academy Award as well.

GOSPEL HANDLES

This is a classic redemption story. One of the key moments in the film is when Bad loses his girlfriend's son in a shopping center. This essentially ends their relationship. Following the breakup and the ensuing heartache, he vows to (and does) become sober. This is a great example of repentance: not merely apologizing for a misdeed, but actually (literally) going the other way.

Further, the film highlights one more critical distinction. Or better, it offers a clarification: the nature of forgiveness. The secular world has, at times, a warped sense of Christian forgiveness. This film illustrates this quite well in a scene at the end. Bad have given up drinking and even changed his name from Bad, reverting back to his given name (Otis). He grants an interview to Jean, only to discover that she is engaged. The two are friendly, and seem genuinely happy to see each other. This is the clarification. Forgiveness does not mean there are no consequences, only that the offense (sin) is blotted out.

CLERGY HANDLES

There are no depictions of clergy in this film.

This film is worth seeing. However, I would wait until the DVD release. This film is appropriate for film discussion groups and sermon illustrations. Be advised that the profanity in the film will be off-putting to some church goers. Caution is advised when using video clips, but that's the standing rule for all illustrations using film.

Pastoral Aesthetic Quotes- 7

"If I am a romantic my parents bear no responsibility for it. Tennyson, indeed, my father liked, but it was the Tennyson of In Memoriam and Locksley Hall. I never heard from him of the Lotus Eaters or the Morte d'Arthur. My mother, I have been told, cared for no poetry at all."

--C.S. Lewis
(in "Surprised by Joy")

Book Review- Art and the Bible

I recently read Francis Schaeffer's collection of essays "Art and the Bible". (Do two essays constitute a "collection"?) If I'm being totally honest, and I am, I must confess to not having read much Schaeffer. I know he has a great many fans in Christendom, but I am not familiar enough with his work (yet) to be counted as one of them. Having established this, let me say that I enjoyed this little volume.

As I stated above, there are two essays in the book. The first essay is the one titled "Art and the Bible". In this section Schaeffer disputes the belief that art has no place in the life of the Christian. Rather, he argues, that art should be in the life of the follower of Jesus. In fact, the Scriptures are replete with examples of not only God-pleasing art, by art mandates by God himself simply for beauty. Examples that Schaeffer uses to support this thesis are the tabernacle and the Temple descriptions and directives found in the Old Testament.

Quite helpful in the section is his discussion of "graven images"; those things which are expressly forbidden by God in the 10 Commandments (depending on which numbering system you employ). This particular commandment, Schaeffer notes, is the first one to which those who argue against art in the life of believers point in support of their position. Schaeffer argues, convincingly I think, that God does not specify "Thou shalt not make representational art". Rather, the prohibition is on worshipping the art that is made.

The second essay, "Some perspectives on Art" is helpful as well. Here Schaeffer lays out what constitutes art, good art, and Christian art. To be sure this is not a detailed excursus on art theory. But, it does provide some introductory material for those looking to see how the arts can fit into their Christian faith and life. Further, it helps in clarifying the distinction between Christian art and "religious art". In other words, Schaeffer argues, again, convincingly I think, that a work of art may be considered Christian, even if it does not deal with or depict Jesus or any other traditional Christian icon. Schaeffer argues, that it is not so much content which makes a work or art Christian, but rather the worldview of the artist.

Schaeffer cautions against trying to determine an artist's worldview, or at least the totality of it in one painting. This, he says, is futile. He places the work of art in the context of the artist's entire body of work.

I would recommend this book for anyone who is looking to explore all dimensions of their walk with Christ. By this, I mean, art and aesthetics are often judged in Christian circles by their content and/or message and then deemed "bad" or "good", which are often synonyms for "appropriate" and "inappropriate". Both sets of terms have their place, but the distinction should be made.

There are any number of art theory and textbooks on aesthetics which expand on the principles Schaeffer puts forth in his essays.But, this read, as I said, is good for beginners and explorers.

One minor flaw in this book is that Schaeffer omits any discussion of film as an art form. This is easily remedied by applying his principles to film study and viewing.