The Daily Detour

On man's Traitor is another man's hero

Over the weekend, Jean and I rented the movie, Traitor. Since we like the suspense-filled, government conspiracy, action flicks, this one fit the bill and was very enjoyable. But as with most movies I watch these days it raised some thought-provoking ideas that I thought I'd pass along to you all. (TDD Spoiler Alert: If you're inclined to watch this movie, that I would highly recommend watching actually, then I would encourage you to exercise some discipline and read no further. It is the very well-done O'Henry ending that provides the context for this post.)

Essentially, the movie tracks the actions of Samir Horn (Don Cheadle), a former special operations officer who is now caught up with a dangerous terrorist organization. The plot centers around the FBI's attempts to capture the terrorists involved, including Samir, before they carry out their master plan. The plan is to have 30 suicide bombers (average looking American people) simultaneously blow up a series of Greyhound buses across the United States. The theory is that if 30 buses are blown up at the exact same time at various points across the U.S., it will result in an unprecedented state of panic and bring the U.S. to its knees.

The audience is continually left wondering just exactly which side Samir is on, particularly given the fact that he himself is a devout Muslim. As the story progresses, it becomes gradually more obvious that Samir is actually deep under cover, working with a rogue member of one of the U.S. government's clandestine organizations. He is using his expertise in building bombs to infiltrate the terrorist organization in order to ultimately cripple it.

The difficulty comes for Samir in walking the fine line between participating in terrorist activities enough to build their trust, but not so much that he compromises his own moral convictions. And in one particular instance that line gets inadvertently crossed, which provides a key moment of moral crisis for Samir.

The suspense builds as the day/time of the mass bombings is quickly approaching. Samir is to coordinate the effort by delivering the bombs to each of the 30 suicide bombers, and then emailing the logistics to each bomber on the day of destruction (providing them the bus numbers, departure times, and detonation instructions, etc.) The film culminates with images of each bomber sitting on their bus, the clock ticking. And when the moment of detonation arrives, each suicide bomber stands up, defiantly yells "Allah Akbar!" ("God is great!"), and presses the detonation button.

Their bombs explode. But unbenownst to them, Samir had assigned them all to the same bus. The crisis was averted and at the end of the movie, the FBI agent who has been chasing him (Guy Pierce) calls him a hero for his actions.

Now, here are a couple of issues to consider. First of all, in the sequence where the bus explodes, there is a very clear scene which shows the bus driver looking back at the commotion seconds before the bombs go off. Presuming he is an innocent civilian, caught up in the events beyond his control, and his death was collateral damage in the explosion (which raises one of the similar questions being debated on the recent Valkyrie post). Was his death worth the price necessary to stop the 30 suicide bombers, who would have presumably perpetrated much greater evil upon scores of American commuters?

Samir was in a very difficult spot (as are the many men and women faced with gut-wrenching combat decisions every day, as well as, the countless members of our clandestine groups who are constantly fighting a relentless enemy). Under the circumstances, he made the best decision available to him. But an innocent person died to accomplish the larger end. Was it worth it?

Secondly, I was intrigued that the filmmakers portrayed Samir as a devout Muslim to the every end. And it raised a very interesting contrast (which I think was intended by the filmmakers). There were devout Muslims who comprised the terrorist organization, and likewise, Samir himself was a devout Muslim. And yet, the terrorists were intent on taking the lives of innocent people (in the name of Holy Jihad). Samir, on the other hand, was motivated by the same Muslim faith to save innocent lives and stand up against the evil being perpetrated in the name of Islam.

So, when it comes to the practical outworkings of Muslim theology, who's right? Not being a Muslim scholar myself, I hesitate to weigh in too heavily here. But suffice it to say, this is a very important question, given the nature of the global conflicts we face today. There are a great number of Muslims who are trying to convince the U.S. that Islam is a religion of peace, and those who carry out terrorism are perverting that religion. As a one, who is part of the Christian religion whose adherents are often accused of similar travesties in the name of religion (e.g. the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc.), I can appreciate the concern. Because as I have often said about Christianity, those blights in Christianity's history are not an accurate reflection of true Christianity. And any reasonable person who is willing to thoughtfully examine and compare the perfect example of Christ (the role model for Christians) to those acts, should be able to recognize that.

If, on the other hand, Islam is driven not by peace, by rather by the outworkings of Holy Jihad, then we (Christians and otherwise) would do well to pay attention to what is happening around us. Because it will not stop, and will not be stopped unless confronted (even by violence at times).

"Operation Valkyrie is in effect."

As I mentioned a week or so ago, the Christmas holiday was filled with a variety of activities, which included catching a few of the holiday movies and finishing a couple of good books. One of those movies was Will Smith's new release, Seven Pounds (which will hit the blog sometime soon). But Tom Cruise's WWII biopic, Valkyrie, rises to the top for now.

 As you may know, the plot of Valkyrie centers around the true life story of Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg and a group of German military officers who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler on July 20, 1944. Anyone with a historical knowledge of WWII and Hitler's eventual demise at his own hand will approach this movie, as I did, wondering how they would keep the audience engaged throughout the 2+ hour epic all while knowing essentially how the movie is going to end. But the filmmakers do a great job developing the characters, as well as, building the suspense throughout the movie.

Most of all, however, the overriding message of the movie is effectively demonstrated throughout and culminates in the final scene. That is, the theme summarized in the movie's tagline, "Many saw evil. They dared to stop it."

These kinds of movies are always inspiring to me in that they leave me questioning, "What would I have done in a similar situation?" Would I have stood up against evil and dared to stop it? Or would I, like many in Hitler's Germany (including, sadly, many of the church leaders of that day), have accommodated myself to a mentality bent on my own survival? It is easy to sit within the comfortably safe confines of a movie theater in a free nation such as ours and contemplate such theoretical possibilities. But we are not guaranteed to know what the future of this nation will be. Would I be willing to confront evil even in this country?

Morever, this idea of standing up for what is right need not only be entertained on a national level. How many times do we have opportunities to exercise our convictions and promote the right and the good on a personal level? Perhaps it's in the workplace, in our churches, our communities, our schools. There are a number of arenas and scenarios in which we are faced with difficult choices. How will we choose? I came away from Valkyrie hoping and resolving anew that, should I ever find myself in such a scenario, I will choose rightly, even if it cost me everything. (But what now, if it merely costs me a pay raise or a friendship, or simply my place in line at the gas station or the grocery store?) 

Heartland Film Festival '08

I failed to post about this last year at this time, so I determined that I needed to rectify that oversight. For any of you here in the Midwest, the Heartland Film Festival is hosting its annual event in which many excellent films are screened for audiences here in Indianapolis. It has grown over the years and has begun to rival some of the bigger film festivals here in the States, with many A-list actors descending upon Indianapolis, including Jeff Daniels, Dakota Fanning and other scores of highly talented individuals.

The festival started today (Oct. 16) and goes until the 24th. If you have never attended the festival, I would highly recommend it. Their tagline captures the experience, for you are sure to relish what are always "truly moving pictures".

Just got back from seeing the movie, Expelled

Jean's birthday celebration culminated tonight in the spontaneous decision to go see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Lots of thoughts...but it's nearly midnight and I'm tired. So, I'll put something up later on it. Goodnight all.

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

"Bueller?...Bueller?"

This is how Ben Stein first came to the attention of culture, for his role as the monotone high school economics professor in the 1986 cult classic, Ferris Bueller's Day Off. He has had a varied career since then, including Comedy Central's popular show, Win Ben Stein's Money. But it is his latest movie venture which is causing considerable buzz and controversy, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

According to wikipedia, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary

...which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that what it calls "Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames evolution for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.

This descriptive blurb does not represent a new line of reasoning in the Intelligent Design debate. ID advocates have been making this case in recent years. However, this new volley on the Origins (Creation/Evolution/ID) front of the culture war brings a different perspective to bear on this debate. Ben Stein is not the expected champion for the ID cause. And it will be interesting to see how his documentary is received.

One other observation to consider: Stein has created a very intriguing dilemma for those in the "Big Science" community. By building the foundation of his documentary on the premise that "Big Science" is squelching dissent of evolution and corresponding debate on the Intelligent Design issue, he squeezes them into a bit of a corner. After all, to speak out against this film would appear to support his premise.

Regardless of where you stand on the Origins/ID issue, I would strongly encourage you to go see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I am planning to do so (though not tonight, as I will be at Indiana's Crisis Pregnancy dinner with Cal Thomas, and not tomorrow since I will be heading up to Chicago for an initial job interview, but hopefully, Sunday I can practice what I preach.) If nothing else, it will give you the chance to be an informed participant in the cultural conversation about this movie. More importantly, the goal in considering questions of our origin should be to evaluate various perspectives on this issue from as objective and fair-minded a position as possible. Certainly, not all of us will agree with Stein's documentary (or his worldview). But it certainly deserves our consideration as we re-evaluate our own assumptions and convictions in this critical debate.

UPDATE: Here's Dinesh D'Souza's take on Expelled.

UPDATE: And Brent Bozell's perspective on a screening of it.

The Bucket List

This past week during the evangelism class I'm teaching on Thursdays nights, the emphasis of the discussion was to evaluate the different worldviews represented in our culture (through movies, T.V., the media, conversations, etc...). As an example, a couple of the members of the class mentioned that they had recently seen the movie, The Bucket List, starring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. At their recommendation, Jean and I decided to go see it this weekend. We were not disappointed. (Thanks for the recommendation, John and Karen.)

Unfortunately these days, there are too few movies that can be wholeheartedly recommended. And even the ones that have a profound message worth considering (like Ben Affleck's directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone, which presents the complexities of moral relativity in real life as well as any movie) are so filled with vulgarity, violence, and sex as to overwhelm the positive contributions of the movie as a whole. That said, The Bucket List is a must see.

It follows the unlikely relationship between Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) and Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman). They become roommates on the oncology ward of the hospital owned by Mr. Cole. Each is diagnosed with brain cancer in various stages of advancement and have been given only months to live.

Mr. Cole is a self-made millionaire, while Mr. Chambers is an auto mechanic with a mind for history and philosophy. It is from Mr. Chambers that the idea of "The Bucket List" is introduced, the list of life goals that he wants to reach "before he kicks the bucket." With Mr. Cole's wealth and Mr. Chambers' vision, the remainder of the movie chronicles the weeks they spend together traveling the globe and gradually checking off each part of their list.

Through that journey comes an awareness that changes them both. And along the way, we see the contrasting impact of their respective worldviews. Mr. Cole is an unashamed atheist who cannot fathom that their is some kind of Supreme Being who created the world and to whom we should give allegiance. His wealth seemingly provides for every need he has.

Mr. Carter, on the other hand, is a man of simple, yet profound, faith. And he challenges Edward Cole's perspective on life throughout their journey together. As the movie progresses, the pendelum swings between their respective worldviews, and by the end, one of the two sojourners has clearly moved in the other's direction. (I'll leave it to you to determine which one.)

The Bucket List does a fantastic job of distinguishing certain implications of the two contrasting worldviews, and their is clearly an uplifting message presented. The caliber of the acting and the chemistry between Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman is at its finest. And the content in this film is better still. The Bucket List is well worth the investment of time and money.

The Compass is not so Golden after all

Dare I admit it, but my usual attempt to address cultural issues in a timely manner does slip on occasion. Most recently, I had intended to do a brief post on the controversial movie, The Golden Compass. However, since it basically plunged at the box office (with a 65% drop over two weeks for a relatively meager $44 million, compared with Will Smith's $77.2 million opening weekend coup with I Am Legend.), the pressing need to address this movie dissipated somewhat.

Author Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy provides the material behind The Golden Compass movie. His publicly-stated intention with the series is that of "killing God." Further, in an interview he explains, "I'm trying to undermine the basis for Christian belief." Ironically, he has been described by Peter Hitchens as "the one the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed."

Beyond that, in another recent interview he dismissed J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as "trivial" and "not worth arguing with." Regarding C. S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles, Pullman admits, "I don't like the answer Lewis comes up with." Such dismissive assessments come from the person who, in the same interview, said about fundamentalists, "You can't communicate with people who know they've got all the answers."

I must confess, this seems highly ironic from where I'm writing. Now, it's understandable that Christians often come across as seeming to believe they have "all the answers" (After all, to have a worldview built on the fundamental idea of Truth is to correspondingly imply that anything which does not correspond to that standard of Truth is wrong.) The irony lies in suggesting that it is Christian "fundamentalists" alone who claim to have "all the answers". The assumption that "I am right and you are not" is a human condition that permeates Christians and non-Christians alike. However, the non-Christian crowd is quite reluctant to acknowledge their own arrogance in this regard.

Some may say that pressure from the Vatican and other conservative groups accounts for the dismal showing at the box office. While such groups certainly have influence, they don't have that much influence. I believe there's a reason The Golden Compass didn't resonate with audiences the same way that C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe did (which is currently ranked number 29th all-time by taking in over $291 million to date). The Golden Compass stands (or in this case, falls) on its own merits.

Of course, maybe those millions of people who didn't go see it on the big screen are simply waiting to rent a copy at their local Blockbuster in order to make up the difference in lost revenue for the New Line Cinema production company? Somehow I doubt it.

Monday Morning Weekend Review

On the political front, Rudy Giuliani fired the first major salvo from the GOP side of the battlefield across the bow of the Hillary Clinton campaign accusing her of flip-flopping on the War in Iraq. (See the full web-ad here at JoinRudy2008.com.) This is not the first ad against Hillary, but it is the first from the other side of the political battlefield. (If you'll remember, there was the mysterious Apple ad that made the rounds last March, purported to be put out by an Obama supporter.)

Like our own U.S. forces, the Brits have had their own run-ins with the Islamic radicals. This tragic tale is yet another reminder of the nature of the enemy we face. As I've suggested before, the possibility of diplomatic solutions to this struggle seem unlikely in the face of such atrocities.

And in other political news, comedian and liberal talk show host, Al Franken, has decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota. And no, this is not just a publicity stunt--he's serious and he has the money to be a contender. The real question is whether or not he will be taken seriously by the Minnesota voters (Of course, this was the state that elected Jesse "The Body" Ventura as their governor, so anything's possible.)

Controversy at the Emmys last night? The encouraging "controversy" of the whole thing is that they actually censored somebody coming out of Hollywood (Did you hear the one about Kathy Griffin and Jesus? Don't miss Lauren Green's very insightful column about it over at FOX News. It deserves a TDD blog post all its own.)

What a week of sports highs and lows! The Portland Trailblazers are lamenting a serious setback to their rebuilding plans, as they found out that #1 NBA draft pick, and Indianapolis native, Greg Oden is expected to be out for the whole season. In the coverage on ESPN Radio last week I heard someone talking about what a blow this is for the Blazers franchise. On the one hand, I agree. It certainly puts a huge rain cloud over the next season. On the other hand, even if Oden had to theoretically sit out for two whole seasons to get his knee fully rehabilitated, he would be, what, 21 years old? In this sports culture where the college and pro scouts are eyeballing little leaguers for future glory we have lost a lot of our perspective. What's it gonna take to get it back?

In the "battle of the bums" (only implied because up until Saturday these two football powerhouses were winless this season), Michigan reestablished their dominance over "Notre Doomed". Charlie Weis, the head coach for the fighting Irish, is certainly feeling the pressure as the vice of performance is increasingly tightened with each loss of this once-deified football dynasty.

These are the kinds of stories that make my day. Have you heard the latest about the "senior" citizen who is playing Division III college football? He suited up but was not put into the game. Bummer! Imagine getting laid out by someone old enough to be your grandpa. That hurts your body and your pride.

And don't miss this mascot smackdown. Gotta love football season! :)

Finally, if you've got $5,000 you can enter the bidding to win a cameo role on Will Farrell's next movie. It is part of his creative fund-raising effort on behalf of Cancer for College. No better way to start a budding acting career than for a good cause. The bidding is already at $12,600, so you'd better start saving your pennies. :) Until next time...

Are there still things worth fighting for?

The recent blockbuster movie, 300, is a cinematic depiction of the Spartan's legendary last stand against the armies of Persia at Thermopylae in 480 BC. A small contigent of 300 valiant Spartan soldiers, led by King Leonidas, confronted the mighty Persian army and fought to the very last man. Though they were ultimately defeated in the battle at Thermopylae, their heroic sacrifice spurred the Spartan nation on to eventual victory over the Persians. In considering the essence of the film, it begs the question, "Are there still things worth fighting for?"

If you've been following The Daily Detour, you know I've posted a couple of brief essays recently concerning "The tragic necessity of violence" and the implications of the Iraq War, both of which have provoked spirited discussion on the comment board. One particular comment raised the questions regarding the war in Iraq, "But do you really think war is the answer? Will it really do any good?" These are very valid questions and certainly warrant further attention.

No reasonable person desires war. And only the most morally aberrant person believes that war is an end in itself. Lasting peace is the end to which we strive. Tragically at times, however, war is a necessary means to that peace.

For example, without war generations of slaves would have remained fettered to the horrors of slavery. Likewise, millions of Jews would not have been freed from the genocidal grip of Hitler's Germany were it not for World War II. When we see the nightly reporting of our soldiers killed in combat, it is easy to forget that nearly as many people die every three months on our interstate highways due to alcohol-related deaths alone than in the entire Iraq War to this point. (Imagine what would happen if our media were as vigilant keeping those 67,540 catastrophic deaths before the American people as they have been with Iraq.) Moreover, the military casualties for the Union army during the Civil War were over 360,000 soldiers killed, with over 23,000 Union casualties in just three days of fighting at Gettysburg. And during WWII, the Allies suffered a staggering 25 million military casualties in the 6-year conflict. These statistics sit in bold relief against the 4,280 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq over the last four years of fighting, a perspective we must not lose sight of.

Because every wartime death is tragic, I wonder, was it worth it? To those generations of black slaves freed from their indentured servitude, it was. To my uncle Andy, who like so many others, lost members of his family in the Nazi concentration camps, it was.

There are those who believe peace without violence is the answer to our global conflicts. To that end, I simply ask, what would one propose we do with a group of people who have already demonstrated the willingness to defy all social, moral, and military convention to ensure our annihilation? Certainly, as Christians we must pray for them, but prayer alone is not the answer. Though we would not choose it, Islamic terrorists are the glaring antagonists of this age. That they are willing to carry out their radical mandate at all costs (including the killing of their own people) has reframed the discussion. As Cal Thomas warns, appeasement stokes the fires of terrorism, and we ignore the gathering storm at our peril.

As we observe various atrocities being committed around the world, are we to sit idly by without intervening? Are we to let the Hitlers, Husseins, and bin Ladens of the world carry out their twisted ambitions unimpeded? We have so accommodated ourselves to the assumption of freedom that we fail to appreciate just how many people around the world don't enjoy such freedom. Who will intervene on behalf of those who cannot stand up for themselves?

Certainly, all reasonable people would want to extend the hand of peace to our global neighbors, but the radical ideology growing within the insurgency has essentially burned the olive branch in the fires of terrorism. But for the radical advances of terroristic ideologies and tyrannical regimes, the necessity of war would vanish and peace would be possible. In the meantime our brave men and women must fight to make it so.

Just as the legendary Spartans stood for their freedom at Thermopylae, so we too must make our stand against the forces that wage war upon the ideals of liberty that God has ordained for all people. Our present reality demands it, and a future for our progeny depends on it.

Amazing Grace and William Wilberforce

In the midst of all the Oscar buzz this past weekend, the box office opening of Amazing Grace was almost overlooked. Though box office results for Amazing Grace were not overwhelming, they were were certainly respectable, given its limited release.

Amazing Grace is the latest offering from Walden Media and its sister company, Bristol Bay Productions. It tells the story about the little-known stalwart in British history, William Wilberforce, the man primarily remembered for his persevering campaign to abolish slavery in the British Empire at the turn of the nineteenth century. For Wilberforce, there were two driving goals in his life: 1. the abolition of slavery, and 2. the reformation of society. His public life was spent fervently pursuing each one.

Wilberforce's story is one that needs to be told. And Amazing Grace makes a noble effort to do that. Overall, the acting is superb (particularly Albert Finney as Wilberforce's mentor, John Newton). Likewise, the visual imagery is compelling and the the production quality is unmistakable.

Where Amazing Grace does struggle at times is not in the story itself, but rather, in the telling of that story. To adequately capture a person's 20-year campaign against slavery is tedious at best. And where the storyline lags, it feels a bit more like watching an eighteenth century version of C-SPAN, which tends to lose all but the most dedicated political junkies. My hope is that this won't be the case for those who go see this movie. For what Amazing Grace may lack in story telling is more than made up for by the substance of the story itself.

The difficulty any director faces in presenting such a biopic is the tension between artistic license and factual grounding. A director's freedom of artistic expression is tempered by the desire to ensure the film's accuracy. Though that limitation evidenced itself throughout this movie at times, it should not overshadow the compelling message of this film.

I would strongly encourage anyone to go see Amazing Grace. The story of William Wilberforce is as relevant today as it was 200 years ago and should serve as the catalyst for our own action. What are the glaring needs facing those in our world today? And, what are we doing about them? We need not only reminisce about the incredible accomplishments of Wilberforce without also considering how we might contribute to his legacy today. Be a part of the amazing change happening in our world.