Barry's Terminator Review is a Bit Ronge [BEWARE - SPOILERS!]

SHOOT: As far as I'm concerned, Movie Review Writing 101, Golden rule 1.1.1 is: Don't give away spoilers in your review. Give a few hints as to the plot, but you owe it to the director, and the potential audience, to preserve the tension and the surprises built into the flick. Not sure why Barry, who I respect as South Africa's best reviewer and the sanest columnist, gives away a good many here. Including the waxlike appearance of Arnie (which I'm sure Barry enjoyed). I also felt the religious motifs, given the Apocalypse Soon motifs, made sense and were a redeeming feature. Here's my review: http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2009/06/movie-review-terminator-is-to-die-for.html

clipped from www.ratherronge.co.za There’s a line in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” that exactly sums up “Terminator: Salvation”. It reads: “It is a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”  The sound scheme in this film is relentless and mind-numbing, with an assembly of high-tech, high-speed action incidents that might divert you while you watch them, but who knows what they actually achieved? The two good things in the film are the luscious and edgy Moon Bloodgood as a fetching warrior woman and Sam Worthington who has such charisma and style that he leaves poor old Christian Bale scowling in his own dust-storm.   Whatever else I was expecting to see in the fourth film in this 24-year old franchise, the most unlikely thing was the starkly religious imagery. I suppose the title “Terminator: Salvation” should have given me a hint but in the storm of futuristic weaponry, the rampaging machines and frenetic, violent action, I was not expecting a humanist sermon, but there it is, pretty much in the first scene of the film.

Ronge Now On Right Track In Terms of Compass' Direction

Last week I posted an article on this blog raising an eyebrow at Barry Ronge's review of The Golden Compass. I was surprised in that review because Barry Ronge had downplayed the anti-Christian statements made in this film, probably because it's the sort of delightful fantasy that seems appropriate for a Christmas flock. It's also the sort of uncomplicated populist view that is easy. Except that Pullman conceived his stories with an explicitly anti-Christian intention, employing an anti-control ethos. And knowing the Christian community, it was probably a little naive to think that this film wouldn't create a storm.

‘Why should Christians sit back and meekly accept these attacks on their faith? When Muslims think their religion has been insulted, they take to the streets, but when Christians speak out, they are called bigots’

Just so: in today's Sunday Times Mr Ronge set things right with this article: Movie sparks a virtual jihad for Jesus. This made the front page of News & Opinion.
In my review of the movie and Barry's review I said: I think Barry is trying to say that it's a flick that can be enjoyed without getting drawn into religious bickering. This is confirmed in this second article of his. Although audiences ought to enjoy the flick for its superb story, its creative exposition of courage and loyalty, and enthralling special effects, it is just too much of stretch to expect Christian audiences not to screetch foul and add poster burning to carol services all over the country.

Barry Ronge calls the brou ha ha erupting the biggest storm in a tea-cup since Harry Potter. Well, for sure Christians are going to object to the nomenclature involved: witches and demons, and the church/Magisterium itself is represented by very Dark Lords. It does demonstrate how silly and precious the Church is about itself. If I want to stir, I can write a story and call my pet dog, who is supremely loyal and good, Demon, and my dad, Lucifer, and basically subvert all the mythology. Does that make it evil? Evil stories essentially encourage malevolence, they have an anti-hero, and they often lack virtue. Most movie stories never eschew courage, and courage is a form of standing by one's beliefs. The Golden Compass is essentially about this, and this is a very encouraging and heartwarming trait in a young person. Harry Potter does the same, so does Jesus, Robin Hood, Hercules and Luke Skywalker. More important than names is intent, motivations, and actions. That's why telephone books don't inspire, but stories about virtue do.

Christians forget, when you criticise their faith, that you are not always attacking morality. You're more often than not attacking dogmatism (the same thing Pullman drives against). Blind morality isn't moral. In Christianity you are revered all the more for accepting something on the least amount of evidence. Sometimes this doesn't work. The pastor of a church I once belonged to went to Mozambique and died of malaria. He died because he refused to take anti-malarials, and made it a faith issue. He left behind a wife and four children. It's that sort of dogmatism that is dangerous and scary.

Christians and atheists ought to be able to agree that what is important is that community is preserved. We ought not to find reasons, take out licenses, to attack one another because the fine print doesn't match. Our intentions, our basic moralities ought to be enough. We ought to find those things that affirm, that we can agree upon. The rest is silliness.

Ronge Review on Golden Compass

With the Golden Compass South Africa's best movie critic goes in the Ronge direction

Barry Ronge downplays the anti-Christian statements made in this film, probably because it's the sort of delightful fantasy that seems appropriate for a Christmas flock. It's also the sort of uncomplicated populist view that is easy. Except that Pullman conceived his stories with an explicitly anti-Christian intention, employing an anti-control ethos. So to downplay that is to really lose touch with the essence the story teller was trying to convey.

I think Barry is trying to say that it's a flick that can be enjoyed without getting drawn into religious bickering. Once again, I think the point is to irk the enemy (as it is declared), to push against dominating and controlling religious thinking. So if you're an atheist (a humanist or a naturalist) The Golden Compass can be enjoyed, even celebrated, on its own terms. If you're anyone else, you probably should stomp on movie posters and kick up a fuss. And it's happening. We'll probably see a lot more posturing over the next few weeks, and hear through the grapevine about absurd geriatric performances* from Sunday pulpits.

That said, I found the movie enormously comforting. I have a lot of Christian friends, so I find it disheartening to have to push alone against this constant tide. It is comforting to know that there are others who also know, implicitly, that for all its good intentions, religion is dangerously deluding. It is good to have thoughtful and imaginative visionaries like Weitz and Pullman who can conceive of a practical and constructive antidote to the unspoken harm that religion does. Religion is often a form of borrowing strength, where, through one's religion, one is empowered or called by God. God speaks to someone and thus they are 'right'. How can you argue with someone making such ridiculous claims. This does a great deal to negate or eclipse firsthand knowledge of something, also called 'reality'. I was happy to see a movie like this, broaching this topic, coming into the public consciousness. The human animal is capable - at times - of actually thinking for itself, awaking out of its programming.

The Golden Compass also portrays some of the great virtues humanity appears to be losing: courage and loyalty. Dakota Blue Richard plays the defiant but devoted friend with a fiery determination. The Polar Bear, voiced by Gandalf (whilst the other wizard from the Lord of the Rings also makes an appearance) demonstrates and personifies both these virtues. His duel with his rival is one of the highlights of the movie.

It is interesting how Pullman has used traditionally evil myths and subverted them into 'good' rebels. He employs witches and demons, who, in this fantasy, might be mistaken for angels and cupids (if only in cute, animal forms).

I also differ with Pullman who said: "For all its length and intellectual complexity, I think Lord of the Rings is an essentially trivial work. It's not about anything important." Tolkien constructed an elaborate, imaginative project to demonstrate the importance of the individual, how even a small person has a vital role in the world. Tolkien also poignantly illustrates through the unusual negative construct (resisting the Ring, the ability to NOT do something) and employing the vital virtues of courage and loyalty. These dual virtues appear to me to be the best foundation for humanity, rather than religion's syrupy and the world's waxy mixed up goo concept for 'love'. Love is hard, tough and disciplined. It's not romantic, except in the sense of retrospective survival, but this romantic sense seems to me to have nothing to do with what real love actually is. This is at least true in terms of the way we think of love and objectification in the modern era.

The daemon concept also provides valuable allegory into the precious and valuable relationships that need to be maintained with ourselves, sometimes also called our 'inner child'. That this is depicted as an externalised extension of ourselves is actually very accurate allegory. Sometimes people behave peculiarly even to themselves, as their pain body is triggered by emotions from others or circumstances. In a very real sense we are not one person, but two, and the inner being is a vital function of who we are. Are we at least aware of this caricature of ourselves? Do we invest in it, take care of it, listen to it?

The 'dust' concept alluded to so often in The Golden Compass is interchangeable with the green streams of code in the Matrix, the Force in Star Wars, the Holy Spirit in Scriptures. It is this something that is also nothing that comprises the compass. It is what the compass points to even when it points elsewhere. It is within this contradistinction that the true answer lies. God, if we insist on such a thing, is a basic unit which runs through everything, connecting everything. It is ourselves, and also ourselves as part of everything else. Once we acknowledge this,once we are aware that something is what it is as much as it is also something else, we begin to understand how the world works, and we can consciously become part of the universe, and part of the corporeal structure of every thing, and if you like - God.

We are all light and dust, and we ought not to be focused on only the finger pointing to the moon, but also on the moon to which it points. It is this context that then expands to include the viewer, bringing about a third dimension, and the knowledge of being in the highest order of things.

*Geriatric: To be insane, stumble, stare at young womens breasts, dribble, incontent, smell of piss.

Oh my god, why do all the geriatric's have to come to the post office at lunch time instead of the other 7 hours in the day when I'm at work and they're doing nothing?

Barry Ronge's Excellent Take (Presidential Candidates)

Clowning glory

The ANC ascension is looming. Here is our list of political protagonists
We’re supposed to be a democracy, but the “Succession Debate” is coming across as an intricate palace intrigue. Our rulers are meant to enact the will of the people, expressed in a free and fair election.

But “Who will take the crown and wear the mantle of power?” is the question on everyone’s lips, which is weird, because nobody in this country wears a crown . Political fundis assure me that the following list is an accurate reflection of the power struggles at play, so I’m going to rank these candidates as if they were superheroes.

THABO MBEKI

He sees himself as a Gandhi figure, as played by Ben Kingsley — wise and noble, or like Charlton Heston’s Moses in Cecil B De Mille’s The Ten Commandments.
He’s big on oratory and gesture, but not given to decisive action. For example: he’s done nothing about his people’s worshipping the “golden calf”. Mbeki should remember that in both the film and the book , Moses never made it to the Promised Land. It was that cute John Derek, playing Joshua, who got the girl, the tribe’s loyalty and top billing in the sequel.

JACOB ZUMA

Remember Jack Nicholson as the Joker in Burton’s Batman revival? That’s the role La Zuma has perfected: always jovial, a broad smile masking his roiling sense of outrage and betrayal by comrades. He’s determined to restore his credibility and hopes to joke and sing his way to the top , so conveniently located next to the banks s, which always make the “top” such a nice neighbourhood to live in.

TOKYO SEXWALE

He’s Bruce Wayne, the urbane millionaire who enjoys public celebrity, but leads a double life. In a fiscal Batcave, he keeps his Batsuit and Batmobile ready for the people’s anxious call for help, by projecting his symbol onto our dark, ominous clouds . “The Dark Knight” does good deeds, but he’s an enigma, which always sits oddly with voters, who dislike politicians with an alter-ego.
NKOSAZANA DLAMINI-ZUMA

Are you kidding me? Since 1652, through Dutch, British and assorted religious dictatorships, and the ANC Revolution, women seldom figure in the power-core of this nation. They say, “Strike the woman and you strike a rock”. We know that a number of women are repeatedly struck in the most brutal way in this country, but the political pedestals offered them are mostly made of sand. Ask Winnie. This “other” Zuma is great at photo-ops, but how many people in the street could identify her face from a photograph?

MUSIUOA LEKOTA

Remember Zorro, the amiable landowner and companion of the corrupt ruling classes, who secretly despised them? Clothed in a black mask and a billowing cloak, brandishing a sword of justice, he cut through the crap and unmasked the villains in his fight for decency and social order.
“Terror” Lekota has the struggle credentials, and he’s done the legwork in committees for long enough to know where all the bodies are buried. I suspect he keeps a well-honed rapier just out of sight, so the fat- cats had better watch out. That nickname might not be just about his soccer skills.

CYRIL RAMAPHOSA

There’s only one real candidate for a political “Superman”, and that’s Cyril Ramaphosa. His affable, untainted public image and his intelligent grasp of situations suggest that beneath this mild-mannered tycoon’s sensible suit lurks a Man of Steel.
Like Superman, he left his home planet, ANC, to live on the strange planet of Capitalism. Like Superman, he also has an arch-enemy, a Lex Luthor lookalike, who is bald, laughs a lot and likes the ladies (ring a bell?), but it’ll take more than Kryptonite (aka ANC back- stabbing) to take him out of the race.

KGALEMA MOTLANTHE

I see him as Dr Xavier in X-Men, the founder and headmaster of the college for youngsters with unusual gifts. He is self-effacing and tends to lead from behind. He’s intensely ambitious and would rather compromise than win by force. He relies on the loyalty of the team, and that makes him vulnerable, but don’t underestimate him. X-Men buffs all know that Dr Xavier died and was resurrected two issues later, and that’s a political trick the public love to see.

From the Sunday Times Magazine, Spit 'n Polish, by Barry Ronge.

NVDL: Superman or Batman are our best bets (as crime fighters and as astute okes). Zorro wouldb't be a bad choice either. If the Joker or the Ghandi stand-in manage to get a leading role in government, we're screwed.