Snow White and The Huntsman, a brief review

Some spoilers referenced.
"Snow White and the Huntsman" is a revisionist and somewhat subversive film, inspired by the tale of "Snow White."

After being confined to the castle walls where her father reigned, Snow (Kristen Stewart) escapes from her evil stepmother (a criminally underutilized Charlize Theron) and goes on the run. Not to be outdone, the evil stepmother hires a brawler entitled The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to capture and bring her back. Along the way, they escape, fight, escape, fight, meet some dwarves and share an oddly timed encounter with that oh so luscious red apple.

Critics are divided, but that means next to little to me. Everyone fights over all things in film, and a majority of critics disliking the film is little indication that the film sucks.

I'm still sorting out the best way to review movies. Do we interpret the good material over and against the bad material, or do we flip it and apply the same method?

It's annoyingly the same. But many critics apply it and it seems to suit them. I shall attempt a simple formula in this review: what is most important in film? Technical. Narrative. Meaning. I'm certain more can be added, but these three figures shall suffice for this exercise.

TECHNICAL

"Snow White and the Huntsman" is, for the most part, technically strong. The visuals evolve and offer interesting splashes of grandiose designs and grotesque symmetry. Images of mushrooms with eyes, monsters appearing as from tree stumps and stone all evoke the landscape of destruction and waste.

The editing, combined with the narrative, is where the film suffers. Scenes drag on at certain points, and the chase/action scenes are quickly motion cut to the point of being barely incoherent. This isn't Tony Scott, but it's pretty close. The poor pacing is reflected in the editing, but it does make me wonder what type of raw material the editors had to deal with.

I'm not an editor, but I found it quite amusing that I was able to predict most of the cuts in each battle scene. Just an afterthought. 

However, there are some interesting uses of metals and unnatural beings that play into the fight scenes, but they are over rather quickly and aren't of much substantial "wowness."The idea of "black glass" creatures fighting with knives and sharp objects is conceptually cool, but the concept flounders where it should've soared.

The film is mixed in the technical department.

NARRATIVE

The narrative is also mixed for me. Though there is compelling imagery and scenes of great power, the majority of the film is so poorly paced that the flaws overshadow the good bits. Conceptually, having Snow escape ala Count of Monte Cristo is ingenious. Showing her power over animals is brilliant. Having a love triangle with the Huntsman and the Prince is stellar.

Being able to revise and re-imagine the legend works well at the basic level. The princess is a scrapper, a reject from her kingdom. Her protector is a drunkard and a lug head. The dwarves are amusing. The style of crows and snow and gnarled trees indicating how all things have come under evil rule is by and large beautifully done.

However.

The Huntsman is far too quite to change in his quest to capture Snow, and his reasons are ambiguous at best. The sudden shift is jarring and unwarranted. Sure, the exposition about his past is brought forth, but there is no catalyst of change as to why he would be interested in saving Snow. Given that he is a bit of a roguish lout, the writer's give him little wit or charisma to sustain our interest in him.

The writing screams for more life, and leaves some gaps. If Snow has power over the animals, why wouldn't she use that at ALL during the final battle? If the evil Queen has the power of flight, why would she wait until the end to go after Snow? Why send anyone at all? Why do her powers not extend into the most evil of her creation? More childishly, why wouldn't the evil Queen, who feeds on others to stay young and beautiful, need Snow when she has an entire kingdom to consume?

Some of these are petty, but imagine massive titan creatures fighting a massive war. Yeah. Pretty cool. I wanted to see more.

The dwarves are amusing, and to see some famous faces on the heads of little bodies is, well, amusing. The Queen is given little to do except scowl, scream and occasionally suck the life out of a few people. Charlize snaps in every scene, but she doesn't have much to chew on. The acting is passable, and this is a complement. Kristen Stewart avoided Twilight, Charlize works some magic and Hemsworth has enough swagger to pull off his end.

The narrative is mixed, leaning towards more critical than acceptable.

MEANING

This is where things get interesting. The amount of Christian imagery is impressive. Walking on water, Aaron's staff, mythological creatures offering blessings and even resurrection. I think atonement is also quite nicely centered around the Christus Victor model but I'm biased.

There are moments of true grief, expressed by the Huntsman in regards to his fallen wife. His longing is palpable, if greatly reduced. The idea of life beyond the grave is seen as a good thing, and especially the honor of dying for a cause, or even the restoration of all the (imagined) creation.

There is indeed great meaning in "Snow White and the Huntsman." This is where the film excels.

CONCLUSION

Beyond the tentpole effects and lackluster storytelling, the film offers some spectacular effects and enough revisionist writing to keep your interest, even when the pacing gets bogged down. The concepts are there, and a few of them are magic. The rest are underused and often ignored.

This is a big screen movie that would be killer in 3D, but there isn't enough magic to make me truly recommend it.

2.75 out of 5 stars.

--Nick

Green Lantern. . .Gay?

Well, the movie stunk so I guess they have nothing to lose. ;)

FOX:

One of DC Comics oldest heroes is super-coming out.

The original Green Lantern - a DC Comics mainstay for the past 70 years - will be revealed to be a gay man in next week's issue of "Earth 2."

Alan Scott - formerly a married father of two who first appeared in 1940 - tips readers off to his sexuality early on in the comic when he gives his boyfriend a welcome home kiss.

"He's very much the character he was. He's still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He's also gay," "Earth 2" writer James Robinson told The Post.

The Emerald Guardian's sexuality was rebooted along with the rest of his fictional universe as part of DC's "New 52" initiative aimed at rejuvenating their characters.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Funny Pat Robertson Picture

Nyuck.

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Why I still call Myself a Baptist."

Olson:

Some of my theological friends criticize me for holding on to my “Baptist” identity in the current theological and political context (especially the U.S.A.) where these labels have largely come to mean mean-spirited, narrow-minded, legalistic, even hypocritical religiosity and where they are virtually equated with the Religious Right, of which I am not a part.

Many Baptist churches have dropped the word “Baptist” from their names because it has been so tarnished by television evangelists, right-wing religious politicians and the so-called “Baptist wars” of the last twenty-five to thirty-five years.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

"Ask an Egalitarian. . ."

Should be a lot of fun. I was just interviewed by Mimi and others at CBE. Very cool to see this. ;)

In preparation for next week’s series, One in Christ: A Week of Mutuality, we have a special addition to our interview series—Dr. Mimi Haddad, who has agreed to be our guest for “Ask an egalitarian.”
 
 (Note: The juxtaposition of this interview and “Ask a feminist...” earlier this week is purely coincidental...though kinda fun. It will be interesting to note similarities/differences in your questions and their responses.)

Mimi is president of Christians for Biblical Equality, a nonprofit organization of Christian men and women “who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups.” She is a graduate of the University of Colorado and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, and holds a Ph.D. in historical theology from the University of Durham, England.

Mimi is part of the leadership of Evangelicals for Justice, a founding member of the Evangelicals and Gender Study Group at the Evangelical Theological Society, and she served as the convener of the Issue Group 24 for the 2004 Lausanne III Committee for World Evangelization. She has written more than one hundred articles and blogs and has contributed to nine books, most recently Living Faith: The Fragrance of Christ, published by the Evangelical Fellowship of India and the Evangelical Fellowship of India Commission on Relief.   She is also an editor and a contributing author of Global Voices on Biblical Equality: Women and Men Serving Together in the Church.

In addition to all of this, Mimi serves as an adjunct assistant professor at Bethel University and an adjunct professor at North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois. She and her husband, Dale, live in the Twin Cities.

You know the drill: If you have a question for Mimi, leave it in the comment section.

For the original article, and to ask a question of Mimi, HERE.


--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part V)

Shaping Influences:

The Influence of Culture

Sacred and secular cultures have had massive impacts on Evangelicals, and as a result, have influenced the gender debate. It is common to hear how much secular culture and liberalism have influenced Egalitarianism or how Egalitarianism will inevitably lead Evangelicals down the path to liberalism or even the acceptance of homosexuality. Massive amounts of effort has been dedicated towards making this alleged reality known and warning the faithful of the danger of falling down the slippery slope. For example, Grudem, the founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has clearly dedicated himself to such a cause by pumping out works with titles such as: Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?, Evangelicalism and Biblical Truth, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, and Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path to Liberalism? Some Disturbing Warning Signs.

Other authors are subtle in expressing their fears of liberalism or the decline of Scriptural authority. For instance, Thomas Schreiner hints at his thoughts throughout his critique of William Webb (who does believe all we need for faith and practice can be found in Scripture). Schreiner continually characterizes Egalitarians as continually promoting “new thesis” and contrasts this with the traditional view (his view) that apparently does not need to be continually defended because it does not change. “Is the goal of publishing to write what is true or what is new? One of the dangers of evangelical publishing is the desire to say something novel.” After giving a fantastic Egalitarian positions not widely held, he gives a kind introduction of Webb before ending his introduction with “but I think all will agree that the book attempts to break new ground on the women’s issue” (all emphasis in Schreiner’s writings are mine).[1]

Kostenberger ends his review of the works of Egalitarians Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee by characterizing them as dishonest. “Personally, I do not think the end justified the means, nor is the pride paid worth the possible gain…In the end, this debate is about truth, not politics; about exegetical responsibility, not propaganda…We ought not to trivialize the issue by substituting rhetoric for substance. We ought not to marginalize the issue by obscuring the clarity of Scripture.”[2] Egalitarianism is thought to be a new, novel or even sinister force that has come to displace Biblical authority. Even authors admitted to be contributing good scholarship (as Schreiner said of Webb) are also understood within a certain negative backdrop or framework. Many Complementarians believe Egalitarians have read back into Scripture what is at heart a secular ideology, even if Egalitarians do this inadvertently. Mary Kassian expresses this sentiment all over her chapter titled “The Slippery Slope” in her book titled The Feminist Gospel.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Becoming Mo(o)re, "Homosexuality, Irrationality & False Dialogue"

This isn't to say I agree with everything he's written, but Calvin is a great writer. I found this challenging.

He says:

Despite the clarity of Scripture on the matter of homosexuality—nowhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament is homosexuality not considered sinful—I have found myself talking about the issue more than I ever thought I would. In political, social, and religious spheres the topic of homosexuality has seemingly taken center stage. From the Queer Underground at Biola University to the President of the United States affirming his support of gay marriage to the state of North Carolina recently passing a constitutional ban on the institution, homosexuality seems to be everywhere.

My question is why? Why do we spend so much time on this issue? Many of my friends and acquaintances (and strangers citing why they’ve left the organized church) note that all sins are the same. We don’t get riled up over gluttony do we? Nope. In fact, the church potluck only serves to supplement a person’s need to engorge oneself. So, why then is homosexuality such a big issue?

First, Scripture speaks openly and frankly about the importance of sex. It lays out for us what is appropriate, the context in which it should happen, and shows the consequences of unbridled sexual desire. Accordingly, sex is such a powerful thing that it reaches down to a person’s very identity and personhood. All sins that we commit are outside of the body, except for sexual sins. Scripture differentiates not on the heinousness of the crime, but on the drastic cost of sexual impropriety. Whether pre-marital sex, extramarital sex, or homosexual sex, the Bible is clear.

But, another reason the church is focusing so much time on homosexuality is because it has been made into an issue for us. . .

For the rest, and it is worth your time, click HERE.

--Nick

Spider-Man & The Avengers

HAH.

--Nick

John Sanders, Free Will Theism & Universalism

Open Theist John Sanders engaged with Universalist Thomas Talbott in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate. I think it was a decent response to Talbott, though I wasn't necessarily convinced in regards to Sanders. Still a most able response.

Does Talbott’s view of being fully rational respect human choice adequately? Do you consider free will essential to how God made us? Does God “risk” when God makes humans and gives them free will? Or, does a libertarian sense of free will entail that God had to take risks when God made humans? Why do you think God made a world in which humans could rebel against God? Is that the best of all possible worlds? Why?


Followers of this academic debate will not be surprised to learn that Sanders doesn’t think Talbott takes freewill theory seriously enough. In the end, Sanders thinks Talbott robs choice of power because God makes conditions that virtually require, or at least necessarily entail, a choice for God.

He begins with a smaller point: Talbott’s belief that humans in heaven can’t be happy knowing the suffering of those in hell. Sanders’ big point is that we don’t know the heavenly condition or ourselves well enough to render such a judgment.

Sanders argues for a libertarian free will and that means humans could have chosen otherwise when they chose to do something. His point here is that God gives humans that kind of free will and that entails humans choosing not to respond to God. So God risks non-love and rejection when God gives humans libertarian free will. Talbott finally argues that such a libertarian free will does not describe God’s redemptive plan.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Peter Enns, "Did Paul have a High View of Scripture?"

As always, I tip my hat to Peter Enns.

Yes, of course he did. He was a Jew trained in the traditions of his people. In fact, he had such a high view of scripture, for a while there he was trying to put to death those annoying Christ-followers who undermined it.

That high view of scripture was not abandoned when Paul became a follower of Jesus himself. It was just transformed and utterly refocused.

Paul had a high view of scripture. It’s just doesn’t look like what conservative Evangelicals insist on when they talk about a high view of scripture.

For Paul, his scripture–the story of Israel–come to its conclusion in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the creation of a new people of God made up of Jew and Gentile on equal footing. But that conclusion could only be seen in hindsight. It wasn’t obvious. That’s why Paul had to argue his case, and, as I mentioned in my previous post, Paul had to make some deft moves to bring Israel’s story into the story of Jesus.

What we’ve got here is, for modern Evangelicals, a bit of a paradox: Paul no doubt deeply respected Israel’s story as God’s Word, but that Word now had to be re-read, because of what God did in and through Jesus did not follow the playbook.

A messiah who died and then rose from the dead. Two problems here:

1. The messianic hope of Judaism was basically (it’s a more complicated than this) of a king like the good old days; a military leader who would rid the land of its current squatters, the Romans, so the people of God could get their independence back.

2. This messiah would set an example for God’s people by living according to God’s Law, thus ushering in a new age of peace and communion with God.

Land and Law. These were connected. Israel lost the land to the Babylonians in the 6th century BC because of their failure to be faithful to God’s Law. Hence, to get it back–I mean actually get it back fully, not just be guests of the Romans–faithfulness to the Law was a big deal.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Shane Hipps Leaves Mars Hill

First Rob Bell leaves, now Shane Hipps. I'm quite curious as to how Mars Hill will recover and bring out new teachers.

Here is part of Hipps announcement:

Not long after Rob left, the Elders determined it was in the best interest of the church to restructure the role of the Teaching Pastor to be a full time teacher, which means approximately 40 Sundays a year.  In addition, that teacher would report to the Executive Director who would be responsible for the overall leadership of the church.

The original calling I accepted was to teach 25 Sundays a year, continue serving the broader church through speaking and writing, report directly to the Elders, and play a major role in casting vision. They acknowledged that the new role was significantly different than the one I originally accepted, but expressed a hope that I would consider applying for it.  I respected their decision and was grateful for their invitation to apply.

And so as I’ve done a number of times in my life, I set about the process of discerning that call.  Almost immediately I was hit with the sad realization that one way or another, my current calling was coming to an end. It took some time to get used to. I love the Mars Hill community and have been very happy here.

For me this was difficult because it presented me with a real dilemma.  If I accepted the new role, I would have to dramatically reduce my service to the broader church which is an integral part of my sense of call.  If I elected not to take the role I lose my grounding in a local community, which I understood as part of my sense of call.  Frankly, I didn’t want to accept either of those.

I came face to face with one of the most powerful and difficult ingredients in discovering call  — the role of limits.

For the rest, click here.

--Nick

Daily Dose of Humor, "Winners Never Qu--"

Heh.

--Nick