Cinderella

I don't think I saw Disney's animated version of Cinderella when it first came out. But I did see the comic book that accompanied it, and can still remember my fascination with the talking birds, mice, and Lucifer the cat, over six decades ago. I suppose that that Cinderella was re-released, and I did see it, perhaps with my wife and children, at a later date.

My wife and I saw the new version recently, starring Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Derek Jacobi, and others. We liked it a lot. The story was very similar to the one in the animated version, although Cinderella was more athletic -- she rode a horse, and did it well. Also, the birds didn't put her gown together in this version.

Cinderella's mother made the girl promise to do two things, namely be courageous, and be kind. Cinderella obeyed, even when her servitude to her stepmother and stepsisters made that very difficult.

In the end, of course, the prince fell in love with her, and she ran away, at the final stroke of midnight, as her magically provided horses, coach, footmen, and coachman morphed back into mice, a pumpkin, lizards, and a goose -- which scene is probably the most appealing to little kids. Nonetheless, eventually the prince identified her with a glass slipper, the only item of attire left from her fairy godmother's magical preparation for the ball, and which would fit no one else in the kingdom.

The sets, including the views of the harbor, the castle, the forest, and the surrounding mountains, were spectacular. The costumes were splendid. Lots of details clicked, such as the way the clock struck. There was a clear struggle between good and evil, and good prevailed. Cinderella's last statement to her stepmother, who showed no evidence of repentance, was "I forgive you."

A fine film. I recommend this article, from Speculative Faith, which combines a review with a reaction to some negative reactions on the part of others. Here's another article, by the same author as the first one, E. Stephen Burnett, also on Cinderella.

Thanks for reading. See Cinderella. There's probably not much hurry -- it's doing very well in theaters, so it will be around for a while.

Sunspots 393

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:  The Register reports on the discovery of a planet that's not orbiting a star.

Sports: Wired has an interview with the author of a book on luck and skill. In the interview, the author says that, of team sports, basketball is most influenced by the skill of the players, as opposed to luck, and he tells us why that is so. (The interview is about other interesting things, too.)

The Arts: I haven't seen Lincoln yet, but Wired has what I take to be a solid review of the film, including statements on who should, and should not, see it.

Politics:  Conservative Christian, and columnist, Cal Thomas has some advice for his conservative Christian colleagues, in the wake of the recent election. Good advice.

Image source (public domain)

The Amazing Spiderman - comic book science

My wife and I recently saw The Amazing Spiderman. (Wikipedia article here, official website here.)

The film stars Andrew Garfield as high school nerd Peter Parker, whose parents died in an accident, apparently soon after they left young Peter Parker to live with his aunt and uncle. (Well-played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen, with some good lines, especially for Sheen.) Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, his high school classmate, who becomes his best friend. Garfield and Stone are both a little old for high school, but why not? I think they both did a good job as actors.

I don't wish to give away the plot, but will mention a few aspects of the film.

Parker/Spiderman is portrayed as on the side of good -- he wants to fight criminals. But his morals are not always perfect. In a glaring example, he takes an identification badge for a special science internship, which belongs to another student, from a table. When the other student arrives, he is forcibly escorted from the building. Parker shows no remorse, and pays no penalty. Presumably, his action might have cost the other boy a college scholarship. I was reminded of incidents in the Harry Potter books, where Harry, Hermione and Ron often break all sorts of rules, because they think they have to, to do what they want. Sometimes what they are doing is to help them defeat Voldemort. Sometimes it's just to have fun, or to get something they want.

The science in the film is comic book science -- impossible things, like regenerating a limb in a matter of minutes, take place. This is not surprising, since the movie is based on comic books. But we should be careful of comic book science.

I know, no one with any sense is going to consciously judge the scientific enterprise by what they read in comic books, or see in movies based on them. But, still, our mythology becomes part of us, whether we realize it or not, and whether or not it makes sense. Some aspects of comic book science are partly true, but mostly not so. The first is that a single scientist can produce a significant breakthrough in any field of science in a relatively short period. Most significant discoveries are made by teams, or made in more than one place at the same time. The second is that lots of beakers, retorts, tubing, and the like are needed to produce scientific breakthroughs. Sometimes, in some fields. But not in astronomy, or in much of ecology, for example. Third is the myth of the mad scientist. There are some scientists who have done some bad things, or want to do them, but scientists are no more likely to want to deliberately release evil upon humankind than, say, park rangers or kindergarten teachers. Most scientists are simply trying to do their job as best they can, and when ethical issues come up, I don't think they are more (or less) likely to make mistakes than anybody else.

Perhaps we should have more movies about mad bankers, or mad real estate tycoons.

One more aspect. There is a large tower, home of Osco, a bioengineering company, in the middle of Manhattan. Much of the action takes place there. According to the Wikipedia article, the director, Marc Webb, thought of this tower as a modern-day Tower of Babel.

Thanks for reading!

"The Help": racism in the 60s

My wife and I went to see the movie, The Help, currently in theaters. We liked it. Here is the film's official web site. Here's the Christianity Today review. Here's the Wikipedia article on the book that the film is based on.

I won't give away much of the plot, but I will say a few things.

The title comes from the subject, namely the state of black women in the Deep South in the 60s, where becoming a household servant was the only way most of them could earn a living.

The younger generation should see this movie. Things have changed, not as much as they should have, perhaps, but they have changed. When the mostly white, and mostly politically conservative people of one of the Congressional Districts of South Carolina elected a black man to represent them, voting for him over a son of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and over a son of a recently deceased popular governor, things have changed. The Help will remind, or show, viewers some of the way we once were. It may also remind, or show us that a lot of people smoked in all sorts of places a half-century ago.

There are no major male characters in the movie. (There were some men, though.) The stars were Emma Stone, Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis, assisted by quite a few others, including Allison Janney, Sissy Spacek, Cicely Tyson, Bryce Dallas Howard, Mary Steenburgen and Jessica Chastain. The story is one that should interest men -- the movie isn't particularly for women, it's just about them.

The Christianity Today review emphasizes the faith of the character played by Viola Davis, and contrasts it with the hypocrisy of Bryce Dallas Howard's character. I didn't see as much of either of those as I expected to see, based on the review. Courage, not Faith, seemed to be the primary subject matter. However, there is a church service, and real, vital Christianity is not minimized.

There's too much of the s___ word, and some other spoken vulgarities, in the movie for my taste. Some of it was required, I think.

My recollection is that there was more physical violence against blacks than the movie shows. It does show a little, and there is news about the assassination of Medgar Evers. My wife pointed out that one form of white violence, namely raping or coerced seduction of black women, was not shown at all. Essie Washington-Williams, daughter of the above-mentioned Senator Strom Thurmond (who sired her long before he entered the Senate) is perhaps the most famous example of such violence, but there was more, not always resulting in a child.

The writing and publication of the book, and the making of the film, are interesting stories in themselves. See here for one article on these matters. The book, by a woman, is a first novel, rejected dozens of times, but later becoming a best-seller, and the film's director  is a male childhood friend of the author, who had never directed a film.

The film was made in Mississippi (the story takes place in Jackson, MS.) As Emma Stone said, ". . . in 110-degree heat and 100 percent humidity — but it sure had to be done in Mississippi."

Thanks for reading. See The Help.

Biblical truths in "Thor," the movie?

A question that readers of fantastic literature should often ask themselves is "does reading about non-Christian religions, the occult, vampires, etc., lead me away from the True God?" Sometimes, I think so. I recently decided that a book, marketed for young adults, and, apparently about fairies living among normal people, was not going anywhere that I wanted to go. I stopped reading it after a couple of chapters. On the other hand, I have read a number of authors who have laid out pagan religions of some sort, and, I believe, found such stories to be uplifting. (See here for more on that subject.)

E. Stephen Burnett has recently posted his thoughts on this sort of subject, with emphasis on the recently released movie, Thor. He concludes that this movie was uplifting, as a whole. His posts are in two parts, here, and here.

The movie was worth watching, and Burnett's thoughts are worth reading.

Soul Surfer, the movie

My wife and I recently saw the movie, Soul Surfer. It's not the greatest movie ever made, but it was good. Much of the photography, involving views of surfing from under and above the surface of the Pacific, as well as scenery from Hawaii, was spectacular. The movie's web site is here. There's a Wikipedia article on the movie here. Bethany Hamilton, who is portrayed in the film by AnnaSophia Robb, with stunts by the real Bethany Hamilton, has a Wikipedia article here. The Christianity Today movie review is here.

I don't think it's much of a secret that Hamilton was bitten badly by a shark, and lost an arm, but recovered well enough to resume a budding career as a surfer. There's more to the plot than that, but that's the bare bones of it. For more, see the links in the previous paragraph.

Some musings:

1) Although the movie has a Christian orientation -- Hamilton goes to church, and on a mission trip, the family prays, and seems to have faith -- I don't think it's preachy. Also, the title comes from a term that does not refer to Christianity, but is a term used to describe a surfer who has good instincts*. (If the film said that, I missed it -- I picked it up from the Wikipedia article on the film.) The Wikipedia article on Robb says that she is a Christian.

2) There were some recognizable Hollywood names, such as Robb, as well as Dennis Quaid, Helen Hunt, Kevin Sorbo and Craig T. Nelson. Carrie Underwood, country singer, had her first film role in Soul Surfer. The Christianity Today reviewer was less than overwhelmed with Underwood's acting, but it seemed competent enough to me.

3) One question both my wife and I had was "what do these people do for a living?" There was no mention of a job for any of the five Hamiltons, unless they made their living by surfing or making surf-boards. There was a very brief mention of home schooling for Bethany, but no other mention of school, for her or her two brothers, who looked old enough to hold a job. The impression was that surfing was the center of their lives. They lived for it, and not for much else. (Not only did the brothers show no evidence of going to school, or working, but they showed no evidence of having girlfriends, either.)

4) The shark attack was handled well. It wasn't over-dramatized, but it was clear that it was a serious matter. The amputated arm was also handled well. It looked like it had really been removed. There were several episodes showing how difficult ordinary acts are, if a person has only one arm.

5) There was rivalry between Hamilton and another surfer. (I have no idea whether this was based on reality, or just put in for the plot.) That is understandable. However, Bethany's best friend, also a surfer, and apparently supposed to be a Christian, fouled the rival on purpose, and did not apologize. Bethany thanked the rival for not cutting her any slack.

6) The best line in the movie was Hamilton's. After being beaten by the rival, but having done a great job with a good wave, just after time expired, a TV newsperson asked how it felt to lose. Hamilton said "I didn't come here to win. I came to surf." If that was true, it was a change of heart. Hamilton was shown to be extremely competitive, and obviously wanted to win very badly. But if God gave her ability to surf, then she should have used that ability, to His glory, and let the victories come, or not. I hope that was true.

Thanks for reading, even if you were web-surfing.

*I changed this sentence on April 30, 2011.

"Creation" - the movie, Darwin, pain and suffering

I did not see the movie, Creation, which is about the life of Charles Darwin, when it came out. I may not see it. One aspect of Darwin's life that was important to him, but doesn't get mentioned much in our time, is that he had a beloved daughter, Annie, who got sick and died at age 10. Apparently the movie considers that at some length. The Wikipedia article on the film is here.

I have read a good article on the movie, written from a Christian perspective. The article is largely sympathetic to the film, and, for example, points out that some of the medicine of Darwin's time would now be considered quackery. The article also considers the conflict between the Christian faith of Darwin's wife, and the perceived implications of Darwin's theory.

I'm not clear as to whether the film considers that the death of Darwin's daughter was an example of selection against the unfit, but the article mentions that. (Darwin and his wife were related, hence their children were likely to have gotten a double dose of some bad recessive genes.)

Two other aspects of the article are important. The first is the consideration of a problem that has vexed believers since the Fall, namely the question of how pain and suffering in the world is compatible with the existence of a loving, omnipotent God. Here's the most important passage in the article:
Regardless of what philosophical problems Christians may have with the notion of God’s sovereignty and evil, our first commitment is to discover what the Bible says about the issue, not to presuppose what can and cannot be proposed philosophically. Clearly, the Bible claims that God somehow ordains natural disasters and both good and evil in such a way that man’s responsibility is not diminished, nor is God himself engaged in evil. Just how this is so is not explained to us.

The author then goes on to discuss Bible passages which are what the Bible has to say about it.

Another idea that I didn't realize that Darwin had had is mentioned in the article, namely that Darwin considered the possibility that, although evolution seems to work through blind chance, it is possible that God foresaw all of this, and made it possible, by constructing the universe in such a way as to bring it about by chance processes.

Thanks for reading. The movie sounds, from the article, like it is thought-provoking and far more worth seeing than many a film. AllMovie is less generous, but praises the portrayal of Darwin's daughter, whom is described as Darwin's intellectual superior and most penetrating critic. Read the article.

Get Low: Searching for Redemption

My wife and I watched Get Low, a film starring Robert Duvall, Bill Murray and Lucas Black, and a fine supporting cast. I will try not to give away much of the plot, but will say a little. The title comes from dying -- Felix Bush (Duvall) has been a recluse outside a small town somewhere in the Midwest (sometime in the 1930s, I would guess) for about forty years, but wants, somehow, to get forgiveness for his past. He tells funeral directors Murray and Black that he wants not a funeral, but a party, a time when people can tell stories about him, while he hears them. But what he really wants is to tell his own story. He does. There are religious overtones. Bush is told that he must ask forgiveness in order to get it, and that he must ask it of God. It is not clear, to me, at least, that he ever really does that, but he does ask forgiveness of one person.

The dialogue is great, and so is the acting. There are no car chases, and no scenes of too much exposed flesh. A good, well-made movie. I'm glad we saw it.

For the AllMovie review of the film, go here. For the Christianity Today review, go here. (CT also ranked the film as third in its list of the ten most redeeming films of 2010.)

Thanks for reading.

Movie: The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau, starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, was released in our area a few days ago. (Wikipedia article here.) After reading the Christianity Today review, I decided to take my wife to see it, as it was the closest thing to a "date movie" that was on. (I advise looking at this review before spending money on the film, because the review indicates aspects of the movie that might be troubling for some.) The movie is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, which story is available here. Dick's daughter was involved in the film's production.

I'll try to avoid giving away much of the plot, but the title comes from a mysterious group, apparently all male, and all wearing hats, that is tasked with making sure that each person follows a Plan. There is a Chairman, who directs all this, but he is only referred to, not seen or heard.


Christianity Today also interviewed the writer and director of the movie.

When a Bureau person refers to The Chairman, he makes gestures upward, or looks upward. The Matt Damon character directly asks the member of the Bureau assigned to him if the Bureau are angels. The answer is ambiguous, but not a denial. So is The Chairman supposed to be God? Are the Bureau men angels? I don't know, and the answer seems to be deliberately indefinite. It is clear that Bureau members don't know everything, that they make mistakes, and that they don't have anything like full knowledge of The Plan. Does The Chairman? That isn't clear. Do real angels have complete knowledge of what God wants? I doubt it. Do they sometimes make mistakes? I have no idea.

CNN, I find, has a Belief Blog. This entity devoted a posting to an interview, by Fredericka Whitfield, of the writer/director, and the actor who plays the Damon character's Bureau assignee, Anthony Mackie. Parts of the film are shown. The emphasis of the CNN piece was on free will vs. fate.

I understand that the question of free will vs. fate (or determinism) is an important and difficult one. (See, for example, the Wikipedia article on Free Will.) It is not reasonable to expect a popular film to provide definitive answers to such questions. But the movie deserves good marks for bringing it up, in dramatic fashion.

Do I really have choices? I think so. John 3:16, the Bible verse most often quoted, indicates that I do have a real choice as to whether I take Christ as Lord and Saviour. It's not the only such verse. Is my behavior partly determined by my experience and heredity? I'm sure that it is. Does God know what I am going to choose, in advance? I believe so. But I also believe that I have real choices. I could have chosen differently. It's a complex subject.

Thanks for choosing to read this.

The Redemption of Eustace: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader film

I have managed to see The Voyage of the Dawn Treader while it is still in theaters in our locality. I'm glad I did. There were a lot of differences with the book, but the critical point is given by my title, namely that Eustace, a thoroughly nasty boy, repents and is redeemed, in a way consistent with fantastic literature -- he becomes a dragon, then is "un-dragoned." The book and film also agree in having Aslan, the Lion, a Christ-figure, tell Lucy and Edmund that they must learn to know him by another name in their (our) world. I read a couple of reviews of the movie in the mainstream media, and neither of them were put off by these features.

So what about the differences with the book? As in the previous movie, Prince Caspian, there is a lot more graphic violence, and the score is loud. Apparently that's what sells, or what the movie company thinks will sell. There was some violence in the book, but there were also long periods of relative calm, which, among other things, allowed for character development.

Both the movie and the book describe how Lucy, Edmund and Eustace, their obnoxious cousin, are pulled into Narnia through a painting that comes to life, as it were. They tell that Caspian, King of Narnia, is on a voyage in the Dawn Treader, a small sailing ship, to try to find out what happened to seven of Caspian's father's noble friends. They are also exploring the sea to the east of Narnia, which is unknown territory. During this voyage, all of the five main characters, save Reepicheep, the talking mouse, are tempted in various ways. Eustace is transformed into a dragon, and while in that state, tries to be helpful to his shipmates. He also comes to admire and appreciate Reepicheep, which is a great change for Eustace. They both tell that the ship reaches an island where there is a table set with wondrous food, and which island is inhabited by human-appearing stars. (The father star does not appear in the movie.) They further tell that the Dawn Treader eventually comes as close as it can to the edge of the flat Narnian earth, which is near the way to Aslan's country, and that Reepicheep enters that country, Caspian begins the voyage back to Narnia, reluctantly, and Lucy, Edmund and Eustace go back to England, with Lucy and Edmund being told, by Aslan, that they will not be able to return to Narnia.

There are some other similarities between the book and the film, such as an adventure with water that changes anything put in it into gold, but many differences. One such difference is that, in the movie, Caspian must deliver the seven swords of the seven nobles to Aslan's table to defeat the center of evil influence in the islands and sea in this area. The most important difference is that, in the book, there is no such center of evil influence. Each person is, as James put it, drawn away by their own lusts. (There was some of that in the movie, such as Lucy's temptation to say a spell that would make her beautiful above all others, but not as much.)

A number of years ago, I posted a series on temptations in the Narnia books. The post on Dawn Treader is here, and, I believe, covers the various ways in which characters were tempted reasonably well. (One such is in my comment at the end of the post.)

Three final positives about this film. First, Georgie Henley was, again, a splendid Lucy. She showed adoration, character, bravery, envy, and other emotions very well indeed. Second, some of the effects in the movie were very good. The ship was well done. So was the dragon, and Reepicheep, the two-foot tall talking mouse. Third, original illustrations from the book, by Pauline Baynes, were used in the graphics shown during the final credits.

Here's the movie's home page. This is a review by Steven Graydanus, a Christian author, in the National Catholic Register. This is the Christianity Today review. Here's a review by Rebecca Luella Miller, a Christian who runs an blog which is essential reading for people interested in fantasy from a Christian world-view. All three reviews are insightful, and find the movie to be both good and bad, and "less Christian" than it might have been. This is the Wikipedia article on the book. This is the Wikipedia article on the film. Here's my post on the first film of the Narnia series, and here's my post on the second.

Thanks for reading. Read Lewis. See the movie.

Tangled

I recently saw the Disney cartoon feature, Tangled, which is loosely based on the story of Rapunzel. Here's the Wikipedia article on the movie. Here's the Christianity Today review. I liked it, as did my wife, oldest daughter and her husband and children, who are six and two years old. It appeals to all ages, although some children might be frightened by some parts (our older grandson didn't want to watch some scenes).

I shall try not to give away much of the plot, but will say a couple of things.

First, Rapunzel asks an important question, namely, what if the dream I've had for 18 years comes true and doesn't satisfy? Yes. Nothing really satisfies but a relationship with Christ as savior and Lord.

Second, there was sacrifice, or sacrifice offered, by the two main characters. Rapunzel offered to re-submit to the tyranny of the witch who had captured her, if she could just save Eugene's life. Eugene, on the other hand, refused to let her do it, going so far as to cut off Rapunzel's magical hair so that she could not save him. Commendable. Of course, they all (or nearly all) lived happily ever after in the end.

Thanks for reading. See Tangled.

Avatar

I finally got around to seeing Avatar, the movie that uses computer technology to produce a film supposedly set on the large moon of a non-solar planet, and with many characters who are depicted as about ten feet tall, blue-skinned, with tails. This is the Wikipedia article on the film. This is the film's official web site. According to that site, it has been nominated for nine Academy Awards, including Best Picture. The film is said to have earned more money than any movie ever made. This is partly because of inflated prices. But let's put it this way. My wife and I saw the movie two months and one day after its release, and there was a pretty good crowd present for a weekday matinee. Most movies are no longer shown, and headed for DVD release, that length of time after their opening.

An Avatar is a physical being, biological, rather than robotic, which is controlled remotely by a human. The hero of the movie, Avatar, is a paraplegic who controls an alien body, or a body that is very much like that of the aliens. One thing that puzzled me about the movie -- perhaps I missed something -- is that the hero is unskilled as a scientist, and, presumably, too handicapped to have been much use as a military person. So why was he on board the ship that went to the alien moon in the first place? (His twin brother was also on the ship, and died in transit, so the hero is drafted to control the avatar that his brother would have controlled.) The concept is not new to Avatar. I remember reading, at least four decades ago, a story about an astronaut who controlled a body down on, or near, the surface of Jupiter, from a base some distance away from that surface. I can't recall the title of the story, nor the author's name.

There have been a number of reviews of the movie, most of which I have not read. Here's the one from Christianity Today movies. The reviewer is especially impressed by the technical excellence of the film. He does mention spiritual matters, and warns about pagan influences in the film, but is not turned off by them. (The Na'vi have a religion, and we see some of their worship.) The reviewer also mentions a key point, in my view, namely that the Na'vi can become physically and mentally linked to the animals they ride, be these land mammals (?) or dragon-like flying creatures. The New York Times reviewer is mostly positive, and lauds James Cameron, the director, producer, and writer, for showing us the beauty of an alien world. A Times op-ed columnist, however, is quite critical of what he sees as the pantheism in the movie, and in Cameron's world-view. Another reviewer is not very concerned about the pantheism in the movie, and praises it for the beauty it shows. I agree that the movie is spectacular. I also agree that it seems to present a non-Christian religion as if the Na'vi believe in it.

I'd like to raise two points about the biology of Cameron's imagined world.

First, there seem to be a lot of animals, more than you'd expect could be supported by the vegetation. In other words, the food pyramid seems to be larger on top than would be realistic. Granted, there are some very large trees, but trees generally aren't good for food, and, besides, most or all of the animals seem to be carnivorous.

Second, did Cameron actually imagine anything new in his biology? Could I, for that matter? Are our imaginations restricted to variations on what life already exists in our world? Has God created any radically different beings on other worlds? (For example, creatures that have more than two sexes, that live backwards in time, or that obtain their energy in ways that no earth organisms do.) There are some variations in Avatar, for sure, such as non-insectoid land animals with six legs, small jellyfish-like creatures that float in the air, and flying animals with four wings, plus the ability to make physical and neural connections with beings of other species.

Now, back to the pantheistic world-view. Part of this is not pantheism, or not just pantheism, but, apparently, an imagined biology. The entire biosphere seems to be connected neurally, as if it were one super-organism, a god, if you will. The trees are said to be in physical contact with each other. (There is more than one species of them.) The small jellyfish-like organisms seem to float around wherever they are needed, and serve to connect animals, and the Na'vi, to this central intelligence.

Four aspects of Cameron's imaginary neurobiology were of interest.

First, as mentioned above, the Na'vi are shown as being able to make temporary neurological connections to animals that they mount. They do this with what looks like a long pony-tail, but which, apparently -- it isn't spelled out -- is actually something like a flexible auxiliary spine coming out of the back of the head. It has small tentacles (?) at its end, and these are able to connect to the tentacles in a similar structure on the mount animals. So far as I know, there's nothing like this in earthly biology. If it really did exist, it would require some sort of conscious connection between two organisms, of different species. Is such a thing possible? I'm not sure.

I am surprised that Cameron didn't have the Na'vi connecting to each other that way, for example during sexual activity, or between parent and offspring. Perhaps he did, and I missed it.

Second, again, as mentioned above, is the implication that a giant superorganism, made up of all of the organisms on the moon, is possible.

Third is the possibility of fine control of an avatar from a remote location. It is not clear how far the avatars are from the controllers, but it must have been at least a number of miles. Is wireless communication, with little or no lag time, from a distance, possible? Would it be possible to control a body not your own? How? What signals must be broadcast, and how would they have to be received?

Last is the notion that the superorganism is somehow able to transplant the personality, or, if you please, the soul, from the paraplegic body of the hero to his avatar, so that he not just controls the avatar, but becomes the avatar. (The superorganism tried this on an aging, and injured, scientist, but the transfer didn't work.)

Quite a bit of the topics in this post remind me of a longish essay that I wrote nearly ten years ago, entitled "Soul uploading: Computers and the mind-body problem." In that essay, I mused about the speculation that it would be possible to transfer a personality, a soul, from a brain to a computer. Cameron's Avatar supposes that an extremely complex supermind would be capable of transferring a personality, a soul, from one body to another.

I fear that much of Avatar is the imaginary equivalent of the Tower of Babel -- look what we humans are capable of doing! We don't need God! I'm not expecting to see any of this in reality, and I am not sure that a lot of what was in the film could ever be possible. But, after all, it's fiction.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 248

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor:(or maybe Sports) NPR reports that the inventor of the Frisbee has died. He was 90 years old. Thanks to him!

Literature:
Christianity Today has released its annual list of the Top Ten Most Redeeming Films of 2009. I actually saw three of them, and hope to rent a couple more, or get them from the library.

Christianity:In Answers in Genesis Research Journal, an article on how important textbooks in Systematic Theology treat the Age of the Earth. Warning: the article is 25 pages long. As I am not an expert in Systematic Theology, I have not read it all. I was interested in the introduction, which sets forth the reasons for Young-Earth Creationism. Some or all of the reasons can be refuted, but they are well set out. The author believes that Systematic Theology textbooks are misleading future ministers, by not supporting Young-Earth Creationism.


Image source (public domain)

Julie & Julia: my take on the movie

No car chases, no one gets killed (or even dies), no aliens, just French cooking. Julie & Julia was hilarious! (The link is to the review on the Christianity Today movies web site. There's a real ampersand in the title. Blogger won't allow me to use one in the labels of this post. Oh, well.)

Amazing for 2009, the movie features two married couples who love each other, in all senses of the term. The story is about the wives, but the husbands are acted well, and written as supportive to the point of being saintly.

Meryl Streep was Julia Child. Amy Adams seems to have been sanitized as Julie Powell, the 2002 young married with a hopeless job who starts blogging through Child's book, but Amy Adams is cute, and the movie shows lots of (probably realistic, and really amusing, so long as you are watching someone else) frustration with the cooking. It also shows Powell realizing that she had gotten pretty self-centered. Not much of Child on TV, although there is some.

A plus for me is that Powell's blog is a major part of the movie. It's a real blog. The posts for August, 2009, are found here. (She gets a lot more comments than I do!) Powell's first post is here. (She switched hosts a few years ago.)

For those concerned about such things, both the married couples are shown having some implied sexual activity, there's a little language that I would not use, and Child and her husband (and most of the other people in the 1950s) are both shown as smokers, which they most likely were.

No one prays, or goes to church, or worships anyone but themselves, their goals, or food cooked in lots of butter, but it was an uplifting movie. It showed two women pursuing their dreams, and loving, intelligent, and supportive husbands.

I recommend Julie & Julia to you.

More on Expelled, the movie

I have not seen Expelled, the recent movie about Intelligent Design (ID) and academic freedom. I did post, linking to two reviews of the film by Christians. I have discovered an even more extensive treatment of the film, and the issues it raises, on the web site of the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of Christian scientists.

The article is by Jeffrey Schloss. He seems to have been careful, and thorough. Schloss considers three main points.

First, on the linkage between evolution (which, unfortunately, Schloss does not define) and atheism, Schloss concludes that some views of evolution are, indeed, atheistic, and that that is a legitimate concern. However, he says of the film "What appears to be waved off without consideration is even the possibility of mutually enriching commerce between faith and evolution."

Second, on the matter of whether ID advocates have been unfairly treated by academia, Schloss concedes, after a discussion of the evidence, that that is possible. But he raises a more fundamental question: What is the ID movement all about, anyway? What does ID propose? He points out that Ben Stein, the narrator of Expelled, asks whether presenting ID in some academic settings should be forbidden. Schloss indicates that teaching that the earth is flat should be forbidden in a geography class, and that holocaust denial shouldn't be allowed in history courses. But, says he, about whether Expelled answers Stein's own question:
Unfortunately, on just this question - the one on which the entire point of the film most crucially hangs - it remains almost completely silent. In order to assess the point, we need to know what “the idea” of ID entails, and then what some of the arguments might be that support it, and then whether such arguments are properly scientific or perhaps better dealt with in philosophy. Even the first question is left hanging. What, besides believing that an intelligent Creator made the cosmos, does ID actually stand for?

Schloss says that the film doesn't answer that question, and this is not surprising. Young-Earth Creationism (which is not the same as ID) whether right or wrong, does present a falsifiable thesis, namely that the earth is only a few thousand years old. ID does not.

In his consideration of this second question, Schloss rejects ID's claim that ID is merely science, not religious. (I have written more on this question, and agree with Schloss on the matter, based on publications from the ID movement, itself.)

Third, on the claim that Darwin led to Hitler, Schloss concludes that this is not true.

Finally, Schloss concludes:
Sadly, the film contributes to an approach that has raised rather than lowered walls between Christians and the surrounding culture. Sadly, it raises the already growing walls of suspicion about any scholarly attempts to explore the relationship between science and faith. Sadly, it raises walls that don’t protect but constrain the spiritual growth of our students, if they are driven to believe they must choose between God and evolution. And most sadly, it is raising all these walls unnecessarily, along a border that is never demonstrated to have been accurately surveyed, much less to be in need of defending.

Thanks for reading!

Prince Caspian, the movie

I have seen Prince Caspian, the new Narnia movie. As others have said, it isn't the same as the book. What movie is?

For one thing, there is more fighting in the movie, including an attempt to take King Miraz's castle, which isn't in the book at all. For another, Susan is much more active in the fighting than C. S. Lewis would have wanted. And the score is loud, to go along with the fighting. But it's a good enough movie, and Aslan, and honor, and not taking personal vengeance, are elevated. Georgie Henley, as Lucy, is splendidly appealing, as she was in the previous Narnia movie.

Here's a quote from the book (not the movie):
"You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve," said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in Earth. Be content." Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia. New York: Collier Books, 1970. pp. 210-211. To Caspian, who wishes that he had come from a more honorable lineage.

Thanks for reading. See the movie.

Expelled, the movie: two reviews

I have not seen Expelled, the documentary movie featuring Ben Stein, currently showing in theaters. I have read some reviews of it. Two reviews by Christians seem to be especially thorough.

The title of the movie suggests its purpose, namely to prove that the concept of Intelligent Design has been unfairly excluded from schools and academic discussion.

Higgaion and He Lives, in their reviews, agree on the following:
The Intelligent Design movement is not scientific, in spite of the movie. It has not been clearly defined, and has presented no experiments testing its basic premise.

The common claim, by the Intelligent Design movement, that ID is not religious in nature, is clearly refuted by the movie. (This claim is made to bolster the claim that ID has a place in public school science classes.) It is religious.

Intelligent Design has not been unfairly excluded from academia.

Higgaion refutes the claim, made in the movie, that Darwin's ideas led to Nazism. (I confess -- I used to claim that myself, years and years ago.)

He Lives (whose author is a physicist) concludes that many Christians, upon watching the movie (which seems to have been mostly marketed to Christians) will conclude that science is an enemy of the faith. It isn't.

Thanks for reading.

Beyond the Gates of Splendor, part 2

Yesterday, I posted on Beyond the Gates of Splendor, a documentary film telling the story of the killing of five US missionaries in Ecuador in 1956. I have now seen the rest of the film, and the last half was better than the first. (It's not a two-part film -- I just didn't have time to see it all at once.) The End of the Spear was released later, and is a dramatization of the same events. It has the same director as this documentary. The documentary relies heavily on eye-witness testimony by participants, and also on graphic material, including some home movies, from the 50s.

The second half tells more of how Elisabeth Elliot (who has since re-married) and Rachel Saint, wife and sister of two of the murdered missionaries, went to serve the Waodani people. Elliot's service was for a couple of years, but Saint was there for a long time. She worked on translation and Bible teaching. Elisabeth Elliot, in an interview, tells how Saint prepared a woman to preach to the people every Sunday. (Saint is dead.) Elliot took her small daughter with her, and she was, basically, a Waodani kid.

Steve Saint, son of Nate Saint, also spent years with the Waodani. Many things that only God could have done are shown in the film. Steve Saint's son, who had lost one of his grandfathers, developed a grandson-grandfather relationship with one of his grandfather's killers.

The son of the Waodani man who lied about the missionaries, leading to the attack on them,
became a missionary pilot himself, although within his own culture.

I found the interviews with the Waodani, including some who participated in the murder, to be the most interesting part of the film. (There are English subtitles.) They are great actors, they understand that they have come out of great darkness, and they show us, through their eyes, some things about North American mainstream culture that aren't pleasant to see. They are also funny -- natural comedians.

Thanks for reading. I'm glad that I checked this out of our local library. It is still for sale, apparently.

Beyond the Gates of Splendor

I happened to see a DVD entitled Beyond the Gates of Splendor in one of the DVD racks of the local branch of our public library. I had never heard of it. I checked it out, and have seen most of it, certainly enough to recommend the DVD. It was released in 2002.

The film is a documentary, using interviews. It also uses photos, and videos, taken in the 1950s by the missionaries who attempted to reach the Aucas (also known as Huaorani and Waodani -- don't ask me which is correct) of the Amazon jungles of Ecuador. Five male missionaries were killed in 1956. Jim Elliot and Nate Saint are the best known. Elisabeth, Jim Elliot's wife, went to live with these Indians as a missionary some time after the killing. She has been an important author and speaker, and is still alive. One of her books is Through Gates of Splendor, which is about the events of 1956.

All five of the wives of the dead men are interviewed, as are other relatives, a missionary and a US soldier involved in the investigation of the incident, and several of Indians, including eyewitnesses of the events of 1956.

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the Waodani are better off because of the efforts of these, and other missionaries. An anthropologist describes them, as they were in 1956, as perhaps the most violent society on earth -- some 60% of the ancestors of Indians he interviewed back then died by murder.

One idea that I had never heard was the reason given for the killings, by one of the Indians. He said that a man and a young unmarried woman, with an older woman as chaperon, came to visit the missionary men. (There are photos of these three, at the site, with the men.) The man and the young woman went back to the Indian camp without the chaperon, which upset some of the men at camp. These men were told that the chaperon wasn't with them because the foreigners had threatened them, which was a lie. The Indians, it was said, attacked because of this.

This is a moving movie. The recollections of the wives are sometimes funny, sometimes heart-wrenching. The Indians (with subtitles) are sometimes dramatic and sometimes matter-of-fact about some terrible events in their lives, but always interesting. I haven't seen anything about conversions of Indians so far, and probably won't -- this is from Twentieth-Century Fox, not some Christian organization, which, in a way, emphasizes the interest and importance of the story.

The director, Jim Hanon, went on to make The End of the Spear, a dramatized version of the same events, which had rather wide theater distribution in 2005. I guess I'd choose the documentary, if I had to select one of the two. Apparently Beyond the Gates of Splendor is still for sale.

Thanks for reading.

* * * *

March 7th, 2008. An additional post is here.

This isn't love. . .

I took this photo of two Jadera haematoloma bugs, which my source tells me are also known as red-shouldered bugs, yesterday. They apparently spend most of their time locked in coitus, attached to each other. For more information on these insects, see here and here. The second source indicates that they are confined to Florida. Well, maybe. Whatever these insects really are, and they look like the photos in the pages I linked to, they seem to be flourishing in San Diego County, California.

Whatever they are doing, it isn't love. It doesn't match any of the four types of love discussed by C. S. Lewis in his The Four Loves.

For the first time in my blogging history, I have included a short video, which is also of these insects.




Happy Valentine's Day to all, especially my dear wife.