Breakup Shoes

Since I saw "The Dark Knight" at my local IMAX theater on opening night, I'm obsessing with this movie; I can't get enough.  I'm reading reviews, watching the trailers again and again, looking at production photos reading news stories,.  I ask everyone I see, "Have you seen the new Batman movie?" and follow it up with, "It's amazing!"  

I guess my enthusiasm is born out of that amazement: I didn't see "Batman Begins" and so I was thoroughly unprepared for the psychological and philosophical heft of this sequel.  Especially since it is a sequel--and a comic book film sequel at that.  Usually summer blockbuster action sequels are so much more show than substance.  Now, I expected Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal to steal the show, but I didn't expect the movie as a whole to knock me out, but it did.  It works on so many levels: character, cinematography, action sequences, bringing a total vision to life.  It's that rare gem of an action/blockbuster film that blows stuff up but doesn't rely on that alone to make the thing work.  Plus, I felt taken seriously as a viewer, as the film asks us to ponder the contours of human nature, what makes someone a hero, what might make a good person become a ruthless killer, and the definition of madness.  

But first, let me add my voice to the mighty chorus of accolades for Ledger's performance.  It was damned unsettling and absolutely brilliant.  When he was funny, I felt strange about laughing, because The Joker was so authentic to me that laughing felt like I'd be encouraging a sociopath for real.  When he was creepy, my unease was physical as well as emotional.  But no matter what I felt, I was riveted, unable to take my attention off of him, no matter what this menace said or did.  Just give him the posthumous Oscar now.

Next, I'll give some love to Christian Bale.  When I saw Michael Bruce Wayne/Batman portrayal, I realized what I wanted in the character: sexiness, pensiveness, with a certain brashness in the rich boy sophistication.  Bale brings those qualities, but with an edge.  There was one scene in which I was afraid Batman was going to go bat-sh**-crazy over-the-edge and murder someone.  This Wayne/Batman could come as unhinged as the Joker, given the right circumstances.  And at moments, this hero was lost and in despair too.  That's real, that's human, that's one heck of an interesting superhero. 

Chris Nolan, the director of 'Dark Knight' , also directed "Memento," a film which jumped into my top 20 films of all time immediately after seeing it.  Had I made that connection earlier, I might have expected the complexity and expert direction I found.  But oh, how exhilarating to be surprised.   Now "The Dark Knight" has also become a favorite film, for its stunning and skillful blend of brawn and brains.

On Sunday, I'll be organizing and leading an interpretation of Genesis 1-2:4 in movement, fabric, kites, and other props during worship.  I enjoyed my discussion with the pastor of the church (Japanese Baptist Church) about what this text is, and is not.

We agree it is: poetic, joyful, full of existential meaning, about a benevolent universe

We agree it is not: scientifically accurate, meant to be scientifically accurate (i.e. science is not the point of the text), therefore not against evolution per se

Here's the analogy I thought of a couple days ago, on my way to work.  When a child asks, "Where do babies come from?" and by implication, they are asking where she/he came from, an adult can choose between two possible answers.  One answer is about sperm, eggs, fertilization, and gestation.  The other answer is about love, nurture in the womb, anticipating the child with joy, and welcome into a family and community.  One answer is scientifically accurate, the other is relationally accurate (for lack of a better term.)  So both are accurate and have their places.  Savvy parents and teachers know which answer the child is really seeking, and is really ready to hear.  The first Creation Story of Genesis is the story of a loving deity who loves the world and the people, animals, and plants in it.  It's the Judeo-Christian version of, "You were made from love and joy, and you and the world are inherently good" for all humanity to know.  Evolution is the scientific version of, "You started as a miniscule cell, activated by another miniscule cell, and grew in the mother's uterus a more and more complicated and sophisticated being, born about 9 months later" for all humanity to know.  Both answer the question, "Where did human beings come from?" And just like scientists continue to learn more about genetics and gestational development, scientists continue to learn more about human origins, evolution, and migration.  Just because there are still questions in the theory of evolution, doesn't mean it's inaccurate.  Heavens knows, there are still lots and lots of questions about the nature of love, psychological development in utero, and parent-child bonding, but that doesn't mean these experiences and concepts aren't real!  Philosophers, theologians, and psychologists ponder and study these concepts.  I believe humans need both explanations, to make a society of strong and competent individuals, able to move forward in life positively in community.

So, can't we all, Creationists/Intelligent Design people and Evolutionists, all get along?