1. Sebastian Faulks writes a mean Bond novel. He did very well at:
- Picking up the character in a 60's setting from Ian Fleming.
- Allowing there to be influence from the journey the films (including the difficult to ignore Casino Royale reboot) have taken the character on since then.
- Working in some contemporary issues.
2. When your brother gets a job in New York the potential for holidaying out there makes for small comfort to the amount you'll miss him.
3. There comes a point where some people have it so tough that love, prayer, empathy and good wishes is all you're left with, but they all look somewhat aneamic.
4. I will be at every Glastonbury festival between now and my death.
5. Conducting marriage ceremonies and dedications for people who aren't part of the Church is bloody brilliant!
6. When you turn a certain age, people only seem able to talk to you about events that are still a year away!
7. Tottenham Hotspur are jinxed.
8. China sure can host an Olympic games. GB sure can get excited about hosting an Olypic Games. The podium 'black salute' of '68 was sadly not to be repeated with a 2008 twist. Shame, the simple wearing of orange would have been quite the statement.
9. Contact lenses are a bit... meh.
10. Bikes might just be God's way - good for you, good for the planet, good for Gold medals, good for a nice jaunt down a tow path to a pub.
29 August 2008
22 August 2008
Yes, you there, the boy at the back. You have a question?
The discussion on gays, lesbians and the Church has been struck up again. The Lambeth Conference cost the Church of England a reported £1.2M to achieve this end. So bits of discussion from different angles continues to unfold in lots of guises in lots of places. Lots has been said, and indeed, lots of people hurt. I feel as though i've heard many of the points that the differing sides have to make, and have a good grasp of the arguments. It's not my intention to replay them, or have them replayed here.
My intention is to ask a question that i haven't heard from anywhere else:
The people defined as liberal are arguing about what they perceive to be a justice / 'aparthied' issue. If they're so convinced by their position, why does Church unity take a greater importance to this? I suppose this is particulary a question of the Archbishop of Canterbury who, though his personal views are widely known, has opted to try and hold the anglican communion together - even with so much having been made of the 'integrity' with which ideas are held by both sides of the divide. If the discussion were over a gender or a racial issue this wouldn't happen would it? Those convinced of the equality of all before God wouldn't agree to stick together, to figure it out as we go. Not if all the while they believed it was extending the period a people group were being injustly treated, would they?
So, is Church unity more important than justice issues?
A couple of my thoughts on the question would be, firstly, that i firmly believe that, even across wildly divergant denominations, we remain one holy catholic Church. Secondly, to what are we called? To do justice or to do church?
My intention is to ask a question that i haven't heard from anywhere else:
The people defined as liberal are arguing about what they perceive to be a justice / 'aparthied' issue. If they're so convinced by their position, why does Church unity take a greater importance to this? I suppose this is particulary a question of the Archbishop of Canterbury who, though his personal views are widely known, has opted to try and hold the anglican communion together - even with so much having been made of the 'integrity' with which ideas are held by both sides of the divide. If the discussion were over a gender or a racial issue this wouldn't happen would it? Those convinced of the equality of all before God wouldn't agree to stick together, to figure it out as we go. Not if all the while they believed it was extending the period a people group were being injustly treated, would they?
So, is Church unity more important than justice issues?
A couple of my thoughts on the question would be, firstly, that i firmly believe that, even across wildly divergant denominations, we remain one holy catholic Church. Secondly, to what are we called? To do justice or to do church?
13 August 2008
i've been on a journey.
It's not planned that i do two film posts back to back, but i don't really have a lot of choice in the matter. See, when i was 6/7 my favourite film was a toss up between Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, probably Temple just sneaking it.
I loved film since then, but gave no more thought to what my favourite was until seeing The Usual Suspects aged 16; it completely took me on a ride. Characterisation was whole and brilliant, dialogue was so natural and paced incredibly, the story dragged me along and it sold me every dummy. Not only this, but the film is fully intended to be returned to again and again with nothing getting any clearer.
One day, when i was 20, i came home a bit early from having a really crappy day at work and wondering what the point of anything i did was. I got in and, having no idea what it was about, put on a old VHS copy i'd been lent of It's A Wonderful Life.
I'd never been so wholly moved by a film before that. Emotional responses, yes: I'd always got upset when Ricky gets shot in Boyz 'n' the Hood and when Dough Boy disappears at the end; Tremors always freaked me out; The Life of Brian always made me laugh hard (particularly the "now don't do it again!" line), but It's A Wonderful Life was something brand new. As much as i adored movies, film had never grabbed my spirit by the throat before.
Since then these two films have fought it out as my favourite (one for my head, one for my heart), my top choice being whichever of these i'd seen most recently (though IAWL just sneaking into 1st place over the past few years).
On Saturday night i watched my new all time favourite film for the first time. It stepped straight into the lead, and i knew it probably would by about half way through.
Sean Penn's Into The Wild is very special. The story is of one flawed young man ignoring the system and seeking to find life in its purest, most whole form. It's both heartbreaking, and heartbreakingly life affirming. One critic (Joe Morganstern) has quite rightly said "the film is as stirring, entertaining and steadfastly thrilling as it is beautiful". He's a better critic than i, since he writes for the Wall Street Journal, whilst i write for me and you three.
I think the main thing that did it for me was that it showed a guy whose life is, in some ways, the negative of mine, and yet is one i could really, really go for. In showing this, it tells a kind of 'grass is always greener' story. Whilst there is incredible freedom and raw beauty, and two fingers at bureaucracy, so-called authorities and corporate society, it also tells of the cost of these things. It holds up ideals, which is always inspiring, but also exposes the flaws in those ideals.
But this is just part of it, go see it yourself. It may not blow you away, films being personal, subjective an' all, but i'm sure you'll agree it was worth watching.
I loved film since then, but gave no more thought to what my favourite was until seeing The Usual Suspects aged 16; it completely took me on a ride. Characterisation was whole and brilliant, dialogue was so natural and paced incredibly, the story dragged me along and it sold me every dummy. Not only this, but the film is fully intended to be returned to again and again with nothing getting any clearer.
One day, when i was 20, i came home a bit early from having a really crappy day at work and wondering what the point of anything i did was. I got in and, having no idea what it was about, put on a old VHS copy i'd been lent of It's A Wonderful Life.
I'd never been so wholly moved by a film before that. Emotional responses, yes: I'd always got upset when Ricky gets shot in Boyz 'n' the Hood and when Dough Boy disappears at the end; Tremors always freaked me out; The Life of Brian always made me laugh hard (particularly the "now don't do it again!" line), but It's A Wonderful Life was something brand new. As much as i adored movies, film had never grabbed my spirit by the throat before.
Since then these two films have fought it out as my favourite (one for my head, one for my heart), my top choice being whichever of these i'd seen most recently (though IAWL just sneaking into 1st place over the past few years).
On Saturday night i watched my new all time favourite film for the first time. It stepped straight into the lead, and i knew it probably would by about half way through.
Sean Penn's Into The Wild is very special. The story is of one flawed young man ignoring the system and seeking to find life in its purest, most whole form. It's both heartbreaking, and heartbreakingly life affirming. One critic (Joe Morganstern) has quite rightly said "the film is as stirring, entertaining and steadfastly thrilling as it is beautiful". He's a better critic than i, since he writes for the Wall Street Journal, whilst i write for me and you three.
I think the main thing that did it for me was that it showed a guy whose life is, in some ways, the negative of mine, and yet is one i could really, really go for. In showing this, it tells a kind of 'grass is always greener' story. Whilst there is incredible freedom and raw beauty, and two fingers at bureaucracy, so-called authorities and corporate society, it also tells of the cost of these things. It holds up ideals, which is always inspiring, but also exposes the flaws in those ideals.
But this is just part of it, go see it yourself. It may not blow you away, films being personal, subjective an' all, but i'm sure you'll agree it was worth watching.
6 August 2008
Knight lights in the dark.
This post comes complete with a 'No Spoiler' guarantee.
The Dark Knight is brilliant!
Christopher Nolan's sequel to Batman Begins (which is also very worthy of the label 'brilliant') is told fantastically. There's a wealth of characters and an ever-rolling web of motivation amongst them, and yet, even bearing in mind how large some of the roles are, the story is so well and so patiently edited that there really is a sense of everyone getting their piece of the action. Not only this, but 'their piece of the action' only serves the film to better it.
The opening sequence is reminiscent of the more adreneline fuelled parts of Heat (ie just because it's adreneline fuelled doesn't mean its brainless) and it doesn't really let up from there.
The Joker scared the crap out of me; Christopher Nolan and the late Heath Ledger have perfectly captured and presented his gleefully nihilistic mania. He's much, much more affecting than Nicholson's Joker who, though great, did put the ham in to Gotham.
It comes in at about 2hrs 30min long, but this isn't too long, i was virtually egging it on to go on longer the whole way through.
I guaranteed no spoilers, but want to offer more than just a review since the film potentially has a place in theological discourse re. atonement and discipleship. In order to do this these are your instructions:
A) Go see the film
B) follow these two links to Kez's blog
C) Come back here to let me know what you think about the relationship between the two.
Amen.
The Dark Knight is brilliant!
Christopher Nolan's sequel to Batman Begins (which is also very worthy of the label 'brilliant') is told fantastically. There's a wealth of characters and an ever-rolling web of motivation amongst them, and yet, even bearing in mind how large some of the roles are, the story is so well and so patiently edited that there really is a sense of everyone getting their piece of the action. Not only this, but 'their piece of the action' only serves the film to better it.
The opening sequence is reminiscent of the more adreneline fuelled parts of Heat (ie just because it's adreneline fuelled doesn't mean its brainless) and it doesn't really let up from there.
The Joker scared the crap out of me; Christopher Nolan and the late Heath Ledger have perfectly captured and presented his gleefully nihilistic mania. He's much, much more affecting than Nicholson's Joker who, though great, did put the ham in to Gotham.
It comes in at about 2hrs 30min long, but this isn't too long, i was virtually egging it on to go on longer the whole way through.
I guaranteed no spoilers, but want to offer more than just a review since the film potentially has a place in theological discourse re. atonement and discipleship. In order to do this these are your instructions:
A) Go see the film
B) follow these two links to Kez's blog
C) Come back here to let me know what you think about the relationship between the two.
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
