How to Save a Life

I've always liked the Fray's How to Save a Life.  [Note: I try not to link to music videos and just the music/lyrics, as the images burn in my head and I no longer use my own imagination about what the song might be about.]  The song is apparently about trying to help someone who is addicted to drugs.

In this Christmas season, I'm wondering and praying over what does it mean for Jesus to be born.  Gabriel tells Mary she will give birth to a son and to call him Jesus according to Luke (1:31), and Matthew says his name will be Jesus for he will save the people from their sins (1:20).  Jesus is related to Joshua, or the one who saves.  Yes, I agree Jesus us saves us from sin, but I find that answer sometimes too trite, having lost its meaning over time in Christian jargon.

I had a breakthrough interpretation the other day, in part from watching Heroes: Season 4: When a life is saved, the course of history is changed.  Now, that's kind of obvious when you think of individual's history.  Then there's that age-old question of, If you could travel back in time and kill Adolf Hitler before he rose to power, would you do it?  That would certainly alter history.

But when we use other Christian phrase, 'born again,' it better captures the significance of what it means to save a life.  "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live [...] but Christ lives within me."  (Gal 2:20).  Now I live in the light of Christ who saved me from myself... from the world... from death... from ____.

What have you been saved from?  Who or what has saved your life?  There's a story to share.  Share it with someone who cares just as deeply as it affects you.

The Theology of Tron

Some might call this post's title an oxymoron.  I mean, sure, there was some religious symbolism in Tron, like most sci-fi, but does it really amount to a full-blown theology?  Read further after the preview below to explore how deep this rabbit hole goes.

[Note: This trailer gives you a better feel for the slower pace of this film.  Trailer #3 is more exciting and more plot-revealing.]



First, a disclaimer: I've only seen half of the original Tron, but did get an in-depth summary of the movie on Wikipedia.  As bad as the original was, it didn't stop me from being there with a few pals (there was one gal, just FYI) to see the midnight showing Thursday night of Tron:Legacy.  I can't say I'm an avid fan, but I do like exploring theological themes in movies.  (My favorite films in this regard are the Matrix films and Last of the Mohicans; also, FYI).  As such, I focus entirely on Tron:Legacy in my commentary.

For those of you wondering if you should ever see the new Tron movie (I'll be honest, the original might be worth seeing once and only once), let me say this: the special effects are cool but certainly not mind-blowing, the action sweet but not stellar, the storyline is generally slow with sparks of action, and the music keeps pace (Daft Punk did an excellent, but not saving, job).  All in all I would give it a good but not great rating for a Sci-Fi film, and overall a barely above-average film (if you're patient and pay attention to the dialogue).  If I hadn't waited hours to see this at midnight, I probably wouldn't be so favorable.  Many a friend have called it "lame," and I can't really argue with them.  My one-word review: enjoyable. Whether you plan to see it or not, I will try to keep out all spoilers until after the "Spoiler Alert" notice.

The movie opens with a typical Father-Son archetype.  The Father (Flynn) is a Creator of an entire virtual world, and it's pretty clear that the Son (Sam) will follow his father there.  Surprisingly, the Son isn't herald as a messiah for a world that's clearly enslaved.  It appears he's there to rescue his father, which is an interesting theological twist.  As such, the world of Tron sees the Son as a way to the father in order to usurp the Father/Creator's power for their own.  Again, another interesting theological twist on the traditional Christian take.  In both theological schema, the son is used to gain access to the Father, yet for completely different reasons.

Now some will say that the Father/Creator isn't really God-like because he appears in human form within the (cyber)world he created.  Yet he did author the world by writing the code that produced it, before entering in as a character.  So there is a little Father/Incarnate Person motif within the character of Flynn himself, who, by the way, describes his creation as "more beautiful than I ever dreamed, more dangerous then I could ever imagine."

Of course, the main observation people will notice is visually with the stylized neon colors: orange/red equals bad guys, and white/blue equals good guys, with a whole lot of black.  That's a little simplistic when you consider that a lot of the city in Tron is white/blue even though it's ruled by bad guys.  With all the darkness, one wonders where is the light?  Where is the sun?  Apparently there's no program for that, as the first question a cyber-character asks about the 'outside' aka real world is, What's the sun like?  Do all of these people live in Plato's cave?  Are they all children clamoring in darkness?

There's also an interesting story of creation between the Father figure (Flynn) and a partner he created called Clue (a mirror-image of Flynn who doesn't appear to age).  As a partner in creation, is Clue an Adam-figure?  I would say No, because Clue is given powers almost if not completely equal to the Creator.  As such, I would say Clue is more like a Satan figure.  A plug for the movie, sums up the basic plot line: Creator creates a world with limitless possibility.  What happened?  "My creation turned against me."  Indeed, at one point Clue/Satan yells to the heavens, "Kevin Flynn  [aka Creator/God]!  Where are you now?"  Can you hear the echoes of Nietzche's "God is Dead" claim?

The Son, Sam, is different, too.  We're not the only ones to realize this: the Tron women who dress him for battle note that, "This one is different."  He asks, "What am I suppose to do?"  and the simple reply he gets is "Survive."  This advice is important insofar as it keeps him alive until he finds a truer purpose.  Indeed, Sam is a "user," not a program, and the innovation is both exciting and frightening for the plebian crowds.  (The Grid scenes of disc fighting and lightcycle racing are very reminiscent of gladiator sport.)

One interesting juxtaposition is the cyberspace world created within the computer system and the 'world out there' aka real world.  Listen to the voice over for this TV Spot - can't you see churches saying "in there is our future, in there is our destiny," speaking of within these church worlds or perhaps "in Jesus Christ"?



Later in the movie, from within cyberspace they talk about conquering/converting the world "out there," purifying it to perfection.  Doesn't it resemble some churches and their missional theology?  I think we're better off seeing the two worlds "in there" or "out there" as interconnected.

Also with regard to the two worlds: Creator/Flynn says "I kept dreaming of a world I thought I'd never see."  How often do Christians dream of the heaven or the Kingdom of God, a world we think we'll never see, except maybe after death or with the second coming?

***SPOILER ALERT***

The end of the movie has the Son (Sam) escape with the last "Iso," Quorra, a creature born out complete within the Grid/Inner Cyberspace without any User/Programmer behind her code.  She is now out in the real world, and it appears she will become a prophet for the age to come.  Sounds like a pseudo-Jesus figure, no?

Returning to the Creator/Satan, Flynn/Clue dichotomy, I found it really cool that in the end Flynn the Father saves Sam the Son from Clue the Anti-Christ by absorbing him into himself.  Many Christians will often talk about Jesus taking on the sin of the world.  What about God taking on the sin of the world?  That's really what we're saying, after all, if we are to also claim Jesus as the Son of God, or rather, God Incarnate.  Flynn the Father uses his power to produce/send out his creation, and then he uses his power to absorb it all back into himself, thus destroying it.  But not without planting a seed in the new world, a "shoot of Jesse" if you will, in Quorra, an original digital creation now living as a sentient being in the 'real world.'

So what do you think?  There's plenty of other themes I didn't touch upon yet, including identity disks, the light beam connecting the 'heavens and the earth' almost a la Sauron in LotR, the outpost away in the mountains from the city, Flynn's Zen practice [best line of movie: "Sam, you're really messing with my Zen thing."], and what about Tron himself?  What do all these things represent/symbolize?

Dead Already

The opening theme to the movie American Beauty is called "Dead Already" by Thomas Newman.  For the record, I really like his stuff.  I had a recent revelation that I'd like to share you (cyberspace).

Now, it's no secret that Kevin Spacey's character is dead when the movie starts, and we find out the how/why/when/who/etc. as the movie progresses.  Yet here is my perhaps-not-so-groundbreaking-theory: the very-much alive Stacey we see throughout the movie is, actually, already dead: dead to ambition, to his true life's purpose, to living life the the full.  Can we say the same about ourselves or someone we know?  What would it take to 'wake them up inside' that they might no longer move dream-like through their 'waking life'?

As with much of American Beauty, there is dual-imagery and multiple interpretations for its myriad of themes.  It deserved the AA Best Picture award, and it deserves more in-depth commentary here.  But that's all I have time for right now after writing my Tron piece.  I'm hoping that writing a post about a movie made 10 years ago is honor enough in itself.

Done!

I finished my last seminary class today.  Wahoo!  We had a very interesting discussion about how to resist the overarching corporate-consumer narrative of our culture.  As with much of my seminary career, there were few answers but a lot of good questions.

I don't officially graduate until May 2011, but with no more classes perhaps now I will write more regularly on this blog... here's to a new year and a new future.

Enlightenment v. Romanticism as seen in JRR Tolkien

I was readying a somewhat interesting but very lengthy review of the Lord of the Rings, particularly the Two Towers, when I came across this section (see below; view webpage here).  I think the author, David Brin, makes a good point: that in opposition to Feudalism/Monarchy rose Capitalism/Democracy with the Enlightenment leading the way.  Yet the sterile nature of industry, equal access, free markets, etc., led to a counter-rebellion, or the Romantic movement.  One may see these two sides continue to battle it out in our secular, postmodern culture, between those who see wonder in "harder" science and those who find wonder in "softer" myth. 

[...]almost from its birth, the Enlightenment Movement was confronted by an ironic counterrevolution, rejecting the very notion of progress. The Romantic Movement erupted as a rebellion against the rebellion.
In fairness, it didn't start out that way. The first Romantics stood with their Enlightenment predecessors against feudalism and clericalism and welcomed the French Revolution as a step toward a kind of utopian universal brotherhood. Even today, men like Thomas Jefferson stand as icons of both Enlightenment and Romanticism.
But this changed when the industrial revolution hit full stride. Suddenly, where once gentry and clergy ruled, there were arrogant new powers striding about. An entrepreneurial bourgeoisie. A new intellectual elite of science. And a clanking, noisome ruction of impudent machinery.
Even democracy began to seem less classically pure when it was taken off a pedestal to be practiced for real by farmers, shopkeepers and a rising middle class, all of them arguing, wheedling and conniving amid an incredible din.
Temblors began splitting a chasm between Romantics and Enlightenment pragmatists. The alliance that had been so formidable against feudalism began turning against itself. Trenches soon aligned along the most obvious fault line, down the middle -- between future and past.
In this conflict, J.R.R. Tolkien stood firmly for the past.
Calling the scientific worldview "soul-less," he joined Keats and Shelley, Sir Walter Scott, Henry James and many European-trained philosophers in spurning the modern emphasis on pragmatic experimentation, production, universal literacy, progress, cooperative enterprise, democracy, city life and flattened social orders.
In contrast to these "sterile" pursuits, Romantics extolled the traditional, the personal, the particular, the subjective, the rural, the hierarchical and the metaphorical.

 The article/review is entitled J.R.R. Tolkien - Enemy of Progress, and goes at length to detail the ways in which Tolkien was a Romantic and used many literary cliches to entrench traditional story-telling, both in his day and now today with Peter Jackson's trilogy.  I still very much enjoy the movies, but am also seeing them in a more understanding and critical light.