An A - Z of movies? Whyfor?

As a person, priest, preacher, teacher and trainer the movies have always been an important source of inspiration, illumination, entertainment and puzzlement to me.   Way back when I was a youth leader I used them with youth groups and when working with other leaders.   Some of my colleagues started to ask for advice.     What movies could they use when running residential events to entertain and yet also subtly contribute  to the content?    They knew I would not suggest ‘religious movies’  which their teenagers would quickly spot as propaganda.    So I began running informal workshops at regional and national youth leader training events and later for clergy.  I started providing lists.  In the 1980’s  computer print outs,   in the 90’s a booklet,  then an experiment with RW-DVDs, and at last a blog.     

I also found myself writing longer articles and sometimes study packs to put on the blog.   Writing these helped me explore in greater depth some of the theological and ethical dimensions of some movies.   Of course I do this mainly for my own satisfaction.   If I enjoy a film I want to know why.    I wonder what deep bells it has rung in my heart and soul.    If I dislike a movie I still want to question why.    So writing a shorter or longer introduction to it adds to my enjoyment.    

When I mention theology and ethics I do not mean I am approaching these movies as an academic, or even inspecting then for overt theological content.    I am an ‘incarnationalist’.  I will not divide creation into sacred  and secular.    I believe that divinity is built into everything.   Sometimes it is honoured, sometimes it is defaced.   I also believe that ‘quality’ is a virtue in and of itself.   

A ‘good’ film is a good film and that has nothing to do with its subject matter.   

Of course I celebrate movies that chime with my values, that lift my soul, that seem to reflect the best in humanity.   But a good movie can also explore the darkness, and by doing so honestly can illuminate it.   There are a few films listed I deplore, and I give my reasons. 

Anyway; here is the A – Z, in three blocks for easier access, followed by the articles they sometimes refer to.     I have taken out most - but not all - of the specific ‘teaching points’ and references to scenes in a movie that could illustrate a particular point,  as this is now for a much more general audience.  

You will notice that I do not have a ‘comments’ facility.    I really do not want to get into long discussions or arguments – especially having read the Comments on many other sites!  Sorry, but. 

I would really like to have a ‘search’ capacity to make things easier to find, but I simply don’t know how to do it.    Nor have I found a way to insert high quality pictures.     Any advise gratefully  received via my email; revbobvernon@hotmail.com.   And of course, even without a Comments button I would enjoy  thoughtful responses, corrections and suggestions.    Enjoy!

Please do not miss The BFG!

Upfront; I am not a Roald Dahl fan.  Some of his work strikes me as misogynist,  much of it seems to celebrate hatred and violence, and may even be anti-Semetic.    Of course his word play was brilliant, and he could see into the mind of childhood.   But children can have nasty minds too, and I think he sometimes celebrated that nastiness.

However.   

I do love The BFG.  It may not justify the rest of his output, but it is his most popular book, and richly deserves to be.

I also love many of Spielberg’s movies, from E.T. to Munich,  Tintin to Bridge of Spies,  Hook to Close Encounters, AI to Catch Me If You Can.  (Let’s just pause for a moment to consider his uniquely enormous genre and tonal range, adding your own poles-apart-examples if you like.)    

So; you will not be surprised to learn that I really enjoyed Spielberg’s film of The BFG.     

Of course I admire the technical brilliance  his team bring to the task, aided to an enormous extent by Mark Rylance’s performance as he provided the voice, the bodily movement and the facial expressions fed into the computer for digitization to create the on-screen BFG.   This seems to be almost ‘essence of Rylance’,  an amplification and distillation of his warmth, wisdom, humour, inventiveness, grace and humanity.     I have long thought that Andy Serkis should have an Oscar or BAFTA category created for his digital work, but now at last he has a rival. 

The storyline is thin, and the late lamented Melissa Mathison resisted – or was discouraged by the Dahl foundation from giving in to- the temptation to add to it.   The cast of characters is limited, and many of them are not really developed characters.    But there are two real in-depth people,  the eight year old orphan Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) and the BFG, and they are what the whole film is about.   The other - truly gigantic - giants, Human-Bean Eaters,  the magnificent fart jokes, even the dream-jars and the enchanting dream lake and tree so beautifully created by Janusz Kaminski, Spielberg’s go-to cinematographer, do not overwhelm the central relationship.    They pay detailed attention to each other.  They care for each other,  they tell each other stories.   At times they mother and father each other.     They befriend and protect each other.   They matter, to each other, and (if we will let them) to us.  As Mark Zoller Seitz says on the Roger Ebert site, this is a kind-souled movie about kind souls.   It is deeply humane, and that works for adults as much as for children.   

Please do not dismiss this as a children’s movie and miss seeing it.