|
|
 |
 |
 |
--- Tuesday, July 31, 2007
What Will They Think of, Next?
Why is it that the release of a movie, a book, or a video game system can spark such a cultural phenomenon? If James Emery White is correct, it is not the allure of the "new" that is so intriguing, but the thrill of the "next."Turn on the TV and you'll find "America's Next Top Model" on CW and "Next" on MTV.
There are even stores specializing in the "next" through "fast fashion," such as H & M and Zara, which replace their entire line of clothing every few weeks.
Our preoccupation with "next" has replaced our earlier fascination with "new." The difference? New is what something is; next suggests a special insight. Christians can be captivated by "next" as much as anyone.
Just think church. Pastors often joke about a "migratory flow pattern" among Christians in their community who are constantly church-hopping to the "next" thing in church life. They move from one church to another, looking for the next hot singles group, the next hot church plant, the next hot speaker, the next hot youth group. Many times they end up full circle where they began, because their original church suddenly became "next." This is, perhaps, the reason that going to see a movie entails 15 minutes of trailers, which are often more exciting than the feature presentation. There is something innately alluring about the "next" -- it allows our imaginations to roam through a utopia wherein lies the best scripted movie, the most amazing gadget, the perfect church.
We are a fickle bunch, though, as White points out. And when "next" becomes reality, our expectations don't tend to hold up. Thus a perpetual casting aside of one trend for another, and an ongoing parade of instant celebrities who become instant has-beens.
Such a mindset is not surprising for a restless and easily bored society, but it seems to be in contrast to the God who changes not and is the same yesterday, today, and forever. While Christians are called to anticipate a "blessed hope," that too is a hope that remains wonderfully static. Nothing that truly matters loses its grandeur like a passing fad. Praise God for that.
--- Friday, July 20, 2007
Someday My Sequel Will Come
Perhaps I tend to cling too tightly to tradition when it comes to the stories of old, but I just can't feel like this article at Slate presents a convincing case.Perhaps ticket buyers (i.e., parents) long for a different era of animation. If so, Disney's sequels will do a much better job of reminding them of the animated classics than the slick gagfests in today's theaters. Despite their straight-to-DVD status, there's nothing cheap or knocked-off about the animators' work on these sequels. They have a rich, hand-drawn look that few studios' CG efforts can match....
And unlike the current crop of animated features, Disney's direct-to-DVD sequels tell their stories simply, without a constant barrage of slapstick and winking pop-culture references. All three films I watched were entirely free of crotch-kicking, and the only fart joke belonged, appropriately, to a skunk. Instead, the jokes tend to be quiet, the action gripping if only occasional, and the entire pace of the movie enjoyably slower than you're likely to see onscreen these days. How much slower? Lady and the Tramp II and Cinderella III even make time for character-defining songs, the way animated movies used to. Disney has become renown, of course, for its ability to create ad nauseam sequels, spin-offs, and Saturday morning cartoons of its brands. But until fairly recently, it seemed that the company's most treasured productions had been spared such treatment. Now, I for one can't help but cringe every time I see a new episode of a classic tale.
The Slate article makes some fair points about the new movies' production value remaining high, but it is not an issue so much about the quality of the story-telling, as the quality of the story itself. And from the films and trailers that I've seen, the original parables of romance, right and wrong, and perseverance through trial are largely replaced by relativism and political correctness -- like plenty of other modern entertainment. But, I wonder, is there any way a timeless work like Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast could be updated in a way that truly honors the original? (Maybe if Pixar made it...)

|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|