Voyage of the Dawntreader - Film Review

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader Rated: PG, 115 minutes,

The latest film in the Chronicles of Narnia series Voyage of the Dawn Treader appeared in cinemas in December 2010 and will no doubt soon be available on video. Based on the third published book in the original series of books by C S Lewis from the 1950s, the film is inevitably different to the book in many respects. However, it maintains the spirit of the original and accurately represents its thrust. Many who see the film will not have read the book and may never get round to reading it and so it deserves consideration on its own merits.

As a family film it scores very well in all respects. Inevitably there are moments of what I believe is now known as 'mild peril' but there are no questionable scenes or language, as one would expect with C S Lewis. The whole thing is done very well with the special effects at an optimum level and the acting of a high standard. The presentation as a whole is excellent. We start off in wartime Oxford and spend just long enough there to establish how normal these children are before heading into Narnia by means of an amazing water scene.

Once in Narnia, the story rapidly unfolds, rarely losing pace. The actor playing Eustace (Will Poulter) is brilliant. I would guess Lewis is describing himself as he once was, before his conversion. I was slightly disappointed with the dragon turning into the boy again scene as I seem to remember more about layers coming off (“when he began pulling the skin off it hurt worse than anything … Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off ... and there it was lying on the grass: only ever so much thicker, and darker, and more knobbly-looking than the others had been. And there was I as smooth and soft as a peeled switch and smaller than I had been … I’d turned into a boy again.”) However, as a starting point for discussing conversion it is still excellent. Temptation and death are among the other vital subjects opened up in this treatment - the temptations faced by Edmund and Lucy, and the passing over of Reepicheep (a fascinating character - perhaps Lewis's ideal of a true Christian - a mouse of great modesty but very brave!).

Towards the end of the film we get what someone has called the John 3:16 of the books "arguably the most succinct and precise evidence of a possible parallel between Narnia and The Bible". When asked by Edmund whether or not Aslan exists in their world, Aslan replies:

"I am ... but there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

Hopefully this film will also help some in finding the true Aslan and the true Narnia. It certainly will not hinder them at all.

Machine Gun Preacher - Film Review

Machine Gun Preacher Director: Marc Forster Writer: Jason Keller (screenplay) Stars: Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan and Michael Shannon

A Hollywood film is currently on general release by the name of Machine Gun Preacher stars Gerard Butler, has high production values and tells the story of Sam Childers, an American citizen but a man who still spends much of his time in Southern Sudan seeking to help children affected by the terrible atrocities that have taken place in recent years in that part of the world. Childers is both a preacher and a man unafraid to use his machine gun. No doubt he is in fact better with his gun than as a preacher.

Most Christians will not want to see this film as it is not only violent but in two sections there is also vile language, reflecting the period firstly before Childers made his decision for Jesus and another time where he seems to lose all profession of faith in Christ.

This is a general problem with films that depict modern life especially where someone has come to Christ from a godless life. Murder and drug taking are easy enough to simulate but without actually committing the sin, swearing is not.

After an important initial episode in Southern Sudan the film begins with Childers on the day he is released from prison. His stripper wife appears to have found faith at a local church but Childers is resistant until eventually making his decision after coming close to a serious crime. It is through contact with his local church that the work in East Africa flows.

Anyone who can get through this unpleasant opening section may find that there is enough stimulus in this thinking man’s action film to keep watching and then discuss with others the issues raised, including man’s depravity – to what extent is it progressive (this in light of the appalling things children have been made to do in Southern Sudan)? Poor theology – how dangerous is it? American self-belief and the gospel – what are the main differences?

One brief section in the film struck me – where Childers tries to teach the children in the orphanage that he founded in a war zone, how to play baseball. They are not interested and only want to play soccer. It doesn’t quite fit but it seemed a partial metaphor for the fact that his American get up and go only takes you so far. Life is complicated and without a rigorous theology, compromise is inevitable. This is not to suggest that theology can solve everything. This film shows that is far from being the case.

This review originally appeared in Evangelical Times in 2012

Courageous - DVD Review

If you are familiar with the work of the Kendrick Brothers and Sherwood Pictures (‘Flywheel’, ‘Facing the Giants’ and ‘Fireproof’) then you will know what to expect from their current DVD ‘Courageous’. The theme this time is fatherhood with the focus on four different fathers, three of whom are in the local police department. Again there is the Albany, Georgia backdrop, the focus on several different characters, the gentle and attractive humour, people praying and being converted and the positive small town American charm. Perhaps the effort to be multicultural and multisocial is more obvious. As ever, the acting is good, the storyline well written and the production values high. The budget was up fourfold this time, to $2 million (but quickly recouped many times over at the box office). However, the project was, as ever, bathed in prayer, involved many extras from the local church, relied on volunteers and has a credit list that still includes people like babysitters and caterers, again from the local church. The film actually ends with a Father’s Day service at the Sherwood Baptist church.

So, a film made by Christians with the laudable aim of drawing attention to fatherhood and what a crucial role fathers can have on the rising generation. What’s not to like? Well, it was a little long I thought. It is relentlessly didactic and even if you agree with the basic premise you might find it a little irritating. The fathers in the film decide to show what committed fathers they are by signing a pledge and making a public commitment. One father gives his teenager daughter one of those purity rings that have been so popular and controversial in the States. All very American and fair enough for an American film, perhaps. My real fear, however, is that with the title Courageous the film is suggesting that all we fathers need to do is to try a little harder, spend a little more time with our kids and everything will be dandy. It is difficult to say whether the problem lies in the Kendrick brothers theology or the medium itself. When you write a story or make a film then you are in a sense acting as God. There is no failure on the part of the writers to introduce conflict and they never suggest that being a father is easy. Nevertheless it would be very easy to watch it and even with the closing text in your head (Joshua 24:15) to think that all we need to do is try a bit harder.

When I was at university studying English I wrote essays that chiefly aimed to convert the lecturer. I now see that was a mistake. That is not what an academic essay is intended to do. Watching and making feature films is surely not a sin. However, we must always remember that Christ conquers sin and wins hearts to himself through preaching not through feature films. Perhaps next time the Kendricks, who are undoubtedly good story tellers, will try and be more subtle and aim more at entertainment rather than trying so hard to convert us all.

This review first appeared in Evangelical Times in 2012.

Noah - Film Review

Paramount Pictures Directed by Darren Aronovsky Starring Russell Crowe Cert. 12A

One of my pet hates is the dinky sort of ‘Noah’s ark’ you see in toy shops and children’s books. The ark in Paramount Pictures’ film Noah is nothing like that. It is a hulking great thing, and when the animals come into it and it floats on the surface of the water in a worldwide flood, it is a great sight to behold.

However, that is probably the best that can be said for a film that most Christians will be very disappointed with. The fact that I need to use the term ‘spoiler alert’ here gives a hint at how far from the Bible account Darren Aronovsky’s film strays.

Wholly fictitious

Turning biblical narrative into a cinematic experience is fraught with difficulties. Indeed, the film’s own ‘health warning’, ‘12A: Contains moderate violence, injury detail, threat’, alerts us to that.

We know too that a feature film will never simply follow a narrative, but needs to build in its own dramatic tensions, so we were pleased not to have to hear an actor giving the voice of God and not surprised to see Noah’s wife (Jennifer Connolly) given such a big part.

We were willing to allow a large part to Shem’s wife (Emma Watson, famous from the Harry Potter films) and can see that there is some room for argument on how Methuselah, Lamech and Ham might be presented, and on whether Noah became a grandfather while on the ark (the film takes us from Noah’s childhood to his drunkenness and repentance, with backward glances to the earlier chapters of Genesis).

We can even overlook inaccuracies, such as ignoring the 120-year gap between the command to build the ark and the flood.

What is much harder to stomach is the blatant rejection of the biblical narrative, in favour of a wholly fictitious presentation of Noah (Russell Crowe) as a man with a death-wish against humanity; and an ark containing seven people not eight, one of them a villainous Tubal-Cain, who stows away for months, only to be murdered before the Ararat denouement!

One of the problems with suggesting, as the film does, that Noah wanted to kill his own grandchildren and so leave the human race with no future is that, far from creating dramatic tension, anyone who is thinking about the plot will be utterly unfazed by all the drama that those playing Noah, his wife and daughter-in-law pour into their parts, since the very fact we are here watching the film dictates the eventual outcome!

Spectacularly wrong

Perhaps we simply have to accept that, when those who are unwilling to treat God’s Word as sacred are let loose on the Scriptures, they will almost inevitably go wrong sometimes; or, as here, spectacularly wrong.

The theological problems with this film are there from the outset. We open with the hopeful words, ‘In the beginning there was nothing’. Everything in the believer cries out, ‘Actually, in the beginning there was God’, but you say, ‘Okay, this is as near as we are likely to get from such a source’.

A few frames in, however, we are introduced to ‘The watchers’, an angel-like race who are fallen and yet redeemable, and who help Noah build his ark. This is highly problematic, as is the film-makers’ inability throughout to distinguish between the miraculous and the magical.

Even when we get a countdown of creation, the idea that the sun and moon were made on the fourth day is firmly rejected, regardless of what Genesis may say on the matter.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the film is the way the Bible’s chief theme of Messiah has been completely removed. The main characters come over as clones of 21st century man, in all his ignorance and arrogance, not as antediluvians longing for Messiah to come.

Damaris Media

I was able to see this film ahead of time, thanks to the efforts of an organisation called Damaris Media (http://www.damaris.org). Led by Nick Pollard, Damaris seeks to capitalise on the existence of films like this, by encouraging discussion of the gospel with people who see it.

The group’s aims are laudable and they have produced excellent materials to accompany the film. I just wonder if the task of getting from the outright fiction of Noah to the true Genesis story will be a step too far in most cases. We do not have to tie our hands behind our backs before we evangelise.

Of course, some people will see the film anyway, and Damaris may be a help in highlighting how to take discussion forward.

This review first appeared in Evangelical Times in 2014

Unbroken - Film Review

Many readers will be aware of the book War and Grace by Don Stephens (EP Books), a collection of short biographies of Christians from the two World Wars.

Its first story concerns an American of Italian extraction called Louis Zamperini. The new edition of the book reveals that he died on 2 July 2014 and mentions the 2010 biography Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand, and a forthcoming film of the same name, directed by Angelina Jolie.

Well, this film has now appeared, going on general release in British cinemas on Boxing Day, 2014. We are always looking for ways to introduce Christ to our unbelieving neighbours and so the fact that a biopic about a Christian has appeared is good news.

Sadly, the film, unlike the book by Hillenbrand that it is drawn from, chooses very much to downplay the fact that Zamperini became a Christian after the war and spent much of his life talking about Christ and the forgiveness that can be found only in him.

Don Stephens prefaces his life of Zamperini with seven summarising points: the first five are well covered by the film, the three middle the most extensively — an airforce bomb aimer, decorated for gallantry in action; a survivor of 47 days adrift on a life raft; an ill-treated prisoner of war of the Japanese for two and a half years.

The bulk of the film looks at these periods, most of the time being devoted to his harrowing years as a POW, when a man known as ‘The bird’ did all he possibly could to ‘break’ this prisoner.

Much of this, which includes a great deal of senseless violence, does not make pleasant viewing. Hence it has a ‘15’ certificate. Zamperini had recurring nightmares after his experiences, until he came to Christ. One can imagine some people having nightmares after watching this presentation.

The first two summarising points — a juvenile delinquent in California, and an Olympic runner at the Berlin Games of 1936 — are covered here by means of flashbacks that bring out his Italian background, the racism he suffered, his delinquency and the way his older brother eventually steered him in a better direction by means of sport (leading to some success at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin).

As for Stephens’ final two points — a drunkard who almost wrecked his marriage, and a Christian — these are almost entirely ignored by the film. It ends with the war, although a few subsequent points are covered in a brief epilogue.

All this means that the only Christian elements are a snatch from a sermon by a Catholic clergyman when Zamperini was a boy (blurring the fact that he later rejected Catholicism for the gospel), his prayer in the life raft that he would dedicate his life to God if he survived, and some conversations about God with his fellow survivor Russell Phillips.

It is hard to understand why the film-makers were not keener to depict the moment when Zamperini returned to Japan after the war in 1950 and, having preached to his former guards, warmly shook them by the hand and expressed his forgiveness. They chose not to do it this way, however.

That still leaves us with an opportunity to take advantage of this brief spotlight on Zamperini to draw attention to him and his Saviour, by means of Don Stephens’ book or other materials that highlight his conversion and Christian life.

This review originally appeared in Evangelical Times in 2015

Knox. The life and legacy of Scotland's controversial reformer - DVD Review

Knox is a documentary produced by Murdo MacLeod, marking the 500th anniversary of the birth of the influential Scots Reformer, John Knox. The documentary is presented in a manner that we have grown used to. Philip Todd, the film’s youthful presenter (in dark jeans, loose narrow tie, etc.), moves from location to location (Edinburgh, Perth, St Andrews, Stirling, Berwick, Geneva), telling Knox’s story.

This is interspersed with a number of talking heads (ministers and academics, such as Rev. Maurice Roberts, Professor John McIntosh and Knox biographer, Jane Dawson). Cartoon images, with Stuart Falconer reading the actual words of Knox, plus a sprinkling of other appropriate images, ancient and modern, are also included. Throughout, music (Charlie Wilkins) and other audio are used to enhance the presentation.

It is all done to a high standard, although the cartoons are not really up to the standard one might desire (this might be the point where a senior youth group starts to snigger, if it gets to see it). The documentary has, understandably, a Scottish feel, which may limit its use in some places. However, it is far more balanced than hagiographic.

The chief aim of the documentary is to give a clear and accurate history, but from time to time participants make statements no doubt intended to encourage true faith in Christ and challenge believers today. Such instruction comes over in the quotations from Knox too.

In the final section, the conviction is clearly expressed that Scotland needs a new reformation. The final words are those of Knox himself, calling upon us to know God, to be faithful and to seek blessing for Scotland. It is encouraging to know that such materials are being made.

This review appeared in Evangelical Times in 2015

Flywheel Facing the Giants Fireproof - Film Review

If you are in the habit of sitting down of an evening to watch a DVD with family or friends then you may have come across one or more films produced by an American group called Sherwood Pictures (not to be confused with Sherwood Films, a quite different Edinburgh-based entity).

Three feature-length films have appeared so far – Flywheel (2003), Facing the Giants (2006)and Fireproof (2009). The third of these films features actor Kirk Cameron, a former atheist who made his name on TV in the comedy Growing pains (1985-1992) but is now working with the American evangelist Ray Comfort.

The films’ subtitles give some idea of the themes: ‘In every man’s life there is a turning point’; ‘With God all things are possible’; and ‘Never leave your partner behind’. The films have been moderately successful. They are now available in a three box set with many extra features including Bible studies. A further film (Courageous) is expected next year.

Whether you came across them by accident or design, you will have been pleased to sit through a heart-warming evening’s entertainment, without having it sullied by the nonsense that so often creeps into the average film on general distribution today. (Having said that, do note that the second film is a PG, probably owing to some of its themes such as infertility.)

The first film Flywheel (a flywheel is a car part, and serves as a background parable) is a sort of modern version of the story of the New Testament character Zacchaeus. The next film Facing the Giants makes college level American football the background, as it focusses on the coach, his failing team and the greater issues he has to face. The third film (Fireproof) is set in a small town fire station, with its story of how a man’s marriage is saved, as well as the man himself.

It is not difficult to commend such films when they are so pleasant and wholesome. Although they are clearly low budget films (Flywheel was made for $20,000; Fireproof for $500,000; whereas an average Hollywood film today costs over $100 million), the production values are high, the story lines decent, the tone engaging, the acting mostly of a good standard and the action fairly well paced, although the dialogue is sometimes rather poor. The projects are evidently bathed in prayer and executed with great integrity.

There are some concerns, however. The films are the brainchild of two brothers, Alex and Stephen Kendrick. Both are pastors on the staff of a large and prosperous Southern Baptist Church with many ministries, in Albany, Georgia – Sherwood Baptist Church.

They say that the first film was prompted by a survey from the George Barna organisation suggesting that movies and television shows are more influential in American culture than the church. In light of that, says Alex Kendrick, ‘we decided as a church to step out in faith and produce a full-length feature film’. However, even if what Barna suggests is true (which is debatable), it is far from being clear that this is the right response to the problem. Certainly, it is hard to see how a local church has a New Testament mandate for such an activity.

Theologically, Sherwood Baptist Church appears evangelical. In the first film the health and wealth gospel approach is just about side-stepped, but all three films present conversion as something that happens quickly and definitely. They may betray signs of a decisionistic mentality.

Of course, the whole problem of how certain matters are presented on screen is a major headache. Kirk Cameron is apparently unwilling to do on-screen kissing. He is reported to have said that ‘In Fireproof, there is a romantic and touching scene where he (the character) kisses his wife. Because I have a commitment not to kiss any other woman, my wife Chelsea came in to the set and wore the dress my character’s wife wore.

‘We shot the scene in silhouette, so when I kiss my ‘wife’, I’m actually kissing my wife and honouring our marriage’. One admires such thought-through commitment, but wonders what Christian actors are doing when they are supposed to be praying in a film – something that happens quite often in these films and that you almost never see in others.

Are they praying or simply pretending to pray? Given that private prayer is to be a private matter, surely it would be better to avoid such scenes anyway?

If you are one for watching DVDs, these films will give you a few relaxing and thought-provoking hours. If you look further into them through the Internet (www.sherwoodpictures.com) or the enhanced DVDs, you will discover the ministry tools that Sherwood Baptist Church are making available to churches and believers for evangelisation, strengthening marriages and similar goals.

Some will want to make use of such tools and one can see how in the context of an active local church they may prove useful. Others will see such an approach as a distraction and not something they want to use as a tool.

D. L. Moody is said to have answered a critic of his evangelistic methods once by saying that he preferred his own way of doing things to the other man’s way of not doing them. One is slow then to criticise what is clearly a sincere attempt to win the lost and to help God’s people.

This article originally appeared in Evangelical Times in 2010

Prince of Egypt - Film Review

Dreamworks studio moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen were discussing what makes a great animated motion picture. They agreed that it had to be something epic and grand, as epic and grand as the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Eventually, it was the period leading up to Sinai that became the subject of the first animated movie from the new studio. It appeared at the end of last year and created a flurry of interest among evangelical believers. The large CLC Christian Bookshop in London carried at least four titles in connection with the film and some churches wove the film title Prince of Egypt into their programmes. 

Positively

So what did we think of it? It is undoubtedly a great technical achievement. Any project involving 400 artists in 26 different countries working for three and a half years deserves some consideration. The scene near the end where Israel crosses the Red Sea is particularly impressive and brings home what an amazing thing it must have been to have been present. I spoke to an evangelical who was consulted and he said that they originally intended to present the scene with just three feet of water! Thankfully they were persuaded otherwise. 

It is good that the film attempts to deal honestly and fairly with the subject matter and is not guilty of blatant blasphemy or distortion. Great care was taken by the studio to consult with the major faiths that acknowledge Moses as a prophet. Many theologians of different persuasions were consulted. Further, it cannot be a bad thing when books are on sale in the High Street drawing attention to the first half of the Book of Exodus. At the start of the film itself we are urged to read the full story in Exodus for ourselves. Hopefully, some have been prompted to read the neglected book and who knows where that may lead? 

Negatively

However, to describe it, as one American evangelical review did, as having a 'Very clear God-honouring, theocentric, false-religion rebuking, biblical worldview where God is the hero behind the scenes and false-religions are exposed and rebuked' is to overstate the case. If you frequent the cinema this is not a film that you will want necessarily to encourage your Sunday School children to see. Like any adaptation from book to film it makes changes to the story and these are likely to confuse anyone not totally familiar with the original material. Scene after scene is altered. It is hard to think of even one where some change has not been made. Moses putting his hand into the burning bush is a particularly bad example.

More than that, by making the focus of the film the possible brotherly relationship between Moses and Pharaoh, elements are introduced that are alien to the biblical narrative. The dramatic turning point of the film is Moses' realisation that he is a Hebrew. It would seem far more likely that he grew up with this knowledge, passed on by his mother. In the film she quickly disappears from the scene but in the Bible she becomes Moses' nurse. 

Then there is the very ethos of the film. As so often happens, all the subtle nuances and the truly theocentric nature of the original are flattened out into the drab humanistic landscape that encroaches ever further into the Eden of a truly biblical and life honouring belief system. Kelly Asbury, head of story on the film, explained the approach when in an interview she said, `We wanted to show that they are all humans with different belief systems that are not good or bad - it's what they believe.' Of course, it is difficult to sustain this in the light of the fact the Egyptians were given over to idolatry and were cruelly subjecting the Hebrews to slavery, but that is the stated aim. 

Some of the songs serve to underline the basic humanism of the piece. Moses' mother sings, 'My son, I have nothing I can give but this chance that you may live.' Miriam sings, 'Who knows what miracles you can achieve when you believe. Somehow you will when you believe'. Even the best of the lyrics, Jethro's exhortation to 'Look at your life through heaven's eyes' eventually sinks into references to the 'winds of change and chance' and learning 'to join the dance'. The claim that 'the essence, the truth and the majesty of the story have been honoured' is highly questionable. 

I took my three older boys to see it. The four and five year olds were not over impressed. Despite efforts to inject light relief with the youthful escapades of Ramses and Moses and the over-the-top antics of the magicians, this is a very serious film featuring slavery, hardship, plague and a very large number of deaths. My nine year old got on much better with it and I think it will serve best in helping older children and adults to reflect on the drama of Exodus - the people's suffering, Moses' rejection of Egypt, the role of Jethro, the struggle with Pharaoh, the Passover, the exodus itself and the crossing of the Red Sea. When it appears on video, an evening watching and discussing it may be time well spent. If you do that, perhaps you can discuss the claim of one evangelical that it 'Proclaims the sovereignty of God and his miraculous involvement with mankind ... shows the need for virtue, integrity, character and the Ten Commandments ... shows God acting in history ... foreshadows the Prince of Peace, who leads all those who ask out of their contemporary bondage into freedom in the kingdom of God.' If only it did.

This article first appeared in Grace Magazine. The flim first appeared in 1998.

Creation - Film Review

The film Creation currently showing in British cinemas will catch the attention of thoughtful people. Its ‘creation’ is not that of Genesis 1, but the creation of the famous book published 150 years ago this November. The film, based on Annie’s Box by Randal Keynes, traces the writing of On the origin of species by Charles Darwin from its final year of gestation up to the dispatch of a completed manuscript to the publisher.
Partly using flashbacks to build up the biographical picture, Darwin is portrayed as an attractive though flawed individual. The film particularly focuses on his inner struggles over Origin’s publication. Various factors delay and then spur the manuscript’s progress. While urged to publish by friends like Hooker and Huxley, his wife Emma’s approval is much more hard won. Then there is the letter from Alfred Wallace outlining the same theory, Darwin’s apparently psychosomatic illness and his fear of unleashing an idea into society that could ‘destroy’ even God himself. Interwoven with it all is his relationship with Annie, the favourite daughter whose early death affects him so profoundly.
A film about a man writing a book is potentially dull, but those involved in Creation are seasoned professionals like film director Jon Amiel. The combination of skilful writing, fine acting – especially from lead actors, husband and wife team Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly – beautiful sets, good music and high production standards make this a powerful production indeed.
There are anachronisms, and doubtful dramatic devices and even straight errors of fact, but a production like this is intended to create an impression rather than get every detail right.

Wrong message
No, the film should not be criticised for those faults, but for something far more fundamental – its whole take on evolution. The film’s subliminal message is: yes, there are extremists in the scientific world, among evolutionists too (Thomas Huxley is portrayed as a most unattractive character). But there are also extremists among religionists. Rev. Innes, the vicar of Downe, makes Annie kneel in rock salt scarring her knees as a penance for believing dinosaurs existed! Eventually, he will not even speak to Darwin.
But most of us – or so the film implies – are there in the middle trying not to be unreasonable. In this category, on the one hand, is Darwin himself, along with his close friend Joseph D. Hooker. They have no desire to cause trouble and simply want to know the truth. They are fearful of public reaction, yet capable of quiet courage. On the other, there are gentle, pious people like Emma Darwin, who respect their minister and read Pilgrim’s progress to their children.
These (or us, as the film seems to quietly preach) sometimes feel estranged from cutting-edge scientists and their strange ideas, but if we will only consider the situation carefully and trust them we will soon realise they are right. Like Emma who, on reading the Origin manuscript through, finally unbends to give Charles her blessing, we will see the light and stop all the carping. But the trouble with all of that is that it is woefully inaccurate and dreadfully untrue. Even though Darwin had positive qualities, his theory of evolution was then and remains now both scientifically wrong and essentially anti-God.
What the late Henry Morris described in his book on the history of evolutionary theories as The long war against God continues to this day; this film is the latest salvo in that war. We need to point this out to the naive and reject the caricatures that underlie productions like this.

This article originally appeared in Evangelical Times.

Life of Pi - Film Review

At the end of 2012 the feature film Life of Pi hit the cinema screens. It is based on a prize-winning book by Yann Martel, first published in Canada in 2001 after a series of rejections. The book and film tell the unlikely story of Piscine Molitor ‘Pi’ Patel, an Indian boy who suffers shipwreck and survives 227 days on a lifeboat in the Pacific Ocean with a Bengal tiger. The film’s director is Ang Lee. It is beautifully shot and a cinematic triumph. In 2010, Barack Obama wrote to the author calling his book ‘an elegant proof of God, and the power of storytelling’.
On one level the book is positive. In one place, for example, the question is asked quite reasonably: ‘If you stumble about believability, what are you living for? Love is hard to believe; ask any lover. Life is hard to believe; ask any scientist. God is hard to believe; ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe?’ There is a recognition that, as attractive as doubt may seem, ‘to choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation’.
The film creates interest on several levels and evangelical Christians will find many topics to discuss among themselves or with unbelievers who have read the book or seen the film. The narrative can be divided into three parts. The central and dominating part of the film is the shipwreck and Pi’s experiences at sea. This is, in turns, gripping, shocking and thought-provoking. Man’s instinct for survival and our utter dependence on God come to the fore here. It is to God that Pi apparently cries in the midst of his desperate need; and where else could he have turned?
At the beginning, Pi describes his early life growing up in Pondicherry, French India, where his father owned a zoo. Of particular interest is the way he is raised as a Hindu by his mother, while constantly being challenged by his agnostic father. In his teens he is introduced first to Catholic Christianity and then Islam. Despite his father’s scepticism, he claims to follow all three religions as he ‘just wants to love God’. Typical of many today, he wants to accept all the religions and reject none, an utter impossibility in reality.
In the closing part of the film, officials speak to Pi about why the ship sank. They are sceptical about his story, so he gives them an alternative - an altogether more prosaic and much less attractive version of events. He asks which of the stories they prefer and claims that the truth does not matter, given that he had clearly been shipwrecked and survived. Thinking Christians will immediately baulk at his statement ‘and so it goes with God’.
Crafting stories is a difficult and serious business. Authors are always trying to push the envelope. However, to have any credibility, they have to deal with reality and that is perhaps what makes the film most interesting. Despite the author’s postmodern outlook, which he projects on to the protagonist, he has to deal with reality. Bananas do float, for example, but a carnivorous island seems less likely. The role of the tiger is particularly interesting in this respect. He is utterly realistic and so is both a great help and, in the end, a disappointment to Pi. At the same time, there is a sleight of hand at play and we must be alert to that. In the book, Martel actually confesses that he believes that fiction is ‘the selective transforming of reality’ and ‘the twisting of it to bring out its essence’. So, when he says, ‘I challenge anyone to understand Islam, its spirit, and not to love it. It is a beautiful religion of brotherhood and devotion’, we know that as well structured as this statement may be, it is simply false.
This article originally appeared in Evangelical Times.