Movement 103

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The increased 'cute' quotient in this movie is where you can see what The Phantom Menace's makers are trying to achieve. lt isn'tjust that - having used Ewoks 0n an unsuspecting populace - George Lucas decided to make every alien cloyingly cute in this film (l shall not speak of the creature known as J*r.,1*r B*nks). lt's that Anakin Skywalker is portrayed as a child, not a teenager which would make better narrative sense for a future relationship with the Queen (as has been predestined). This is purely and simply wish fulfilment for our inner children - who didn't as a kid want to be able to fly in a Star Wars do$ight? - but also key identification for the target audience of the film. Which is what the target audience of Star Wars has always been - namely, kids. I suspectthat all George Lucas has done is understood the needs of today's kids and simply given them what they want. The Star Wars movies, for all of their hackneyed mysticism, are essentially children's f ilms. I don't believe this belittles the series. There is much entertainment primarily for children that can be profound and provide great satisfaction to adults - we need only look to the works of C.S. Lewis, or some of the better BBC children's serials to understand this. lndeed, George Lucas' primary inspiration for Star Wars was Saturday Matinee serials of the '30s and '40s - a children's genre. For the kids of 'my' generation (and a generation orso afterwards) Star Wars was a great kids movie. By the late '70s and early '80s, when the original series of films were made, we had a cultural landscape and language built by television, by Sesame Street, by books and by the very crudely-made early video games. Perhaps The Phantom Menace is a film designed to speak to the kids of my goddaughter's generation - a cultural landscape builtbyTV, byVH-1, by Teletubbies, by hypertext and CD- Roms and, frankly, Star Wars itself. So we get a film that doesn't have conventional protagonists, but has cartoon antagonists; a film that moves briskly from one piece of eye candy to the next; a film that references the entire Star Wars phenomenon but doesn't define much of an identig for itself as a stand-alone film. But perhaps that's alright. The Star Wars franchise is simply adapting to kids needs and reflecting the way popular culture has changed overthe past twenty years. And maybe that's not brilliant film-making, but Star Wars has never been Citizen Kane. For that reason, l'll learn to live with my goddaughter preferring lhe Phantom Menance and putoffthe exorcism for now. Just so long as she doesn't ask me to give her a Jar.Jar Binks action figure for Christmas. Cyberpunk Christ the represented, God, and thatwhich represented the unrepresentable God, the icon. ltwas God who guaranteed this cohesion between the two. But in the age ofthe sign, Baudrillard knows that God is and was a simulacrum, part ofthe unintenupted circuit of meaning that has no reference or guarantee. So what does Baudrillard do? Surprisingly, he sides with the iconolaters and exalts the performative power of the spectacle, conjuring his gods through spectacle, as the Jesuits conjured God through the spectacle ofthe Mass. This is a morbid strategy, and according to Baudrillard's terms, it would be the right one. What else can be done now that there is no Real? What he doesn't allow for is incarnation. The Jesuits did not try to represent the unrepresentable, nor did they see any rupture or gap that could be closed by a guarantorgod. Instead, they canied on the faithful practices through which the unrepresentable triune God presents himself. There is no disjunction between the represented and the representation in a world in which the divine and the mundane are not separated, where God and humanity find themselves linked in the frail flesh of God us in the world, and in this world of simulation. ls it not through the matrices of our living that a true saviour would live and (cont.) reveal himself? Through language, the cultures and the lives we create for ourselves, Christ speaks and lives. We are made in the image of God, not because we are copies, but because we are engrafted into his life and participate in him. Ourfallen representations may never capture and secure for us everything about the unrepresentable God, but they are able to allow him to mediate himself to us. We have no need of a Real outside this world, a separate Zion, because ourZion is here and now, as we participate in God. Our minds and bodies are inseparable, and God is inseparable from his own fleshliness. We have neither need of despair, nor an escape to a place that can be more real than this absolutely Real participation. After Pascal, perhaps we can say that to know thyself is first to dare to believe. And usefully, deja-vu is explained too: it's a glitch in the Matrix. Now we know. crucified and Itlg M lonqcr resunected. rcldantto 9a! lhc rcal Christ does not wda"di6l5".No tyetq ol o. anavi' can guarantee the rcfcr t r)v @lW' representation but is actually incarnate to Rrnsoru To Beuwe by Maurice Wiles (SCM Press) sets out to respond to "some of the most basic of questions about Christian belief that perplex many people both inside and outside the Church." His responses are interposed with'interludes' that deal with underlying issues such as language, the development of doctrine and the role of the Creeds. This approach runs the risk of producing a disjointed work; in fact the book is easy to read and has, on the whole, a cohesiveness of argument as well as a clarity and density of style, necessary for a work covering such a broad range of material. I was left with the impression that several of the sections could have been written as the initial chapter of a book on their particular subject; although as an interested (but probably not very well-read) non-theologian I found the majority of the text was pitched at an appropriate level. Particular sections of the book provided at least basic answers to questions I had asked myselfas a result of encounters with those from traditions other than my own, and Wiles provides a strong further reading section for a more indepth discussion. lf Wiles did have a motive for writing the book other than t0 set out his understanding of the basic issues of Christianity, then it would seem to be his need to question the relationship between Jesus and the Church. The chapter about other faiths is the point at which Wiles begins to discuss whether the Church's teaching is consistent with the gospels. One reason for the disparity of approach between earlier and later sections of the book may be that Wiles assumes that readers of later chapters have already read the book up to that point, and there is in fact a feeling of shared journey between author and reader in the latter sections. A certain lack of objectivity is the price paid for presenting a cohesive argument rather than merely a consistent approach. Some readers may be disappointed by the ambivalence of his conclusions but l, at least, would consider such equivocalness preferable to moral imperialism. The preface implied that Wiles' approach was to be one oftext-book objectivity - yet inevitably it did not achieve this. I would however certainly recommend the book to other interested n0n-experts wanting an introduction with breadth but not necessarily depth. (CATHARINE CARFOOT) movement 24
Tim Woodcock on a surprisingty didactic soundtrack to the summer. Hear sunscreen Baz Luhrmann presents SounHtruc ron EveRyeooy (Capitol) [il*tt*'l.tril#- of the class of 99: wear sunscreen" - once you've heard you won't forget it) has been passed around between friends on C90s for a year or two, and was popularised via the internet - yet it was only released as a single this year rn response to this. Baz Luhrmann, the film director responsible for Romeo and Juliet and Strictly Ballroom,has now released an accompanying album of his soundtrack work. As befits it,'The Sunscreen Song has remarkable origins. Luhrmann was working on a remix of dance anthem'Everybody's Free': he encountered the speech, and believing it to be graduation speech by sci-fi writer Kurt Vonnegut, decided to let the spoken word dominate. Later he discovered it was really by Mary Schmich, a hack struggling to fill her thrice-weekly Chicago Tribune, who just listed everything she had learned about life so far as bullet points. So what are we to make to of: "my advice [which] has no basis more reliable of " lt is uplifting but not mawkish. The prosaic tips cleverly symbolise greater values: "Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements." Some are random health tips: "Be kind to your knees"; "Floss"; "Stretch." Life is unpredictable, part-chance and partchoice. "Maybe you'll have children; maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce aged 40; maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary." The indifference expressed is unsettling, but given this is apparently t0 a Class of 99, a crosssection of the future, it is probably justified. The rambling, eccentric speech is delivered almost without inflexion, the voice being a cross between a robot and John Wayne. ln an age where speaking in the imperative - do this! do that! - is virtually unacceptable, how does'Sunscreen' do it and why it work so well? Charm and careful observation. And the advice is not of the 'know-it-all' kind, some tips are undercut: "Forget the insults and remember the compliments. lf you succeed in doingthis, tell me how." The vague hippy-ish sentiments are phrased with such precision as to ring true. This is life as it is lived. Some people are frightened by a lack of clear moral guidance; but I agree with Mary Schmich, that is all we have, our 'own meandering existence'. lf only all moralists were this compassionate and practical. My favourite tip? "Do one thing every day that scares you." The rest ofthe album was never going to live up to 'Sunscreen' but certainly gets your attention. lt is the aural equivalent ofthe cinematography of Rorneo andJuliet. lt has lhe tunr(reen rong ((la$ ot 991 pzaz. Mostly they are 'remixes and reinterpreted songs' and given that it is called 'Something for Everybody' I was expecting the very worst. There's a fair number of soulful ballads that you'd expect on a soundtrack; but also some gems in here. Their value is roughly in proportion to their oddness. Doris Day doing'Perhaps Perhaps Perhaps'from 1947 - sassy rather than saucy, because she is having to fake the Latin flair; the cheesy glitterama of 'Love ls in The Ai/; and baz luhrmann presents Something For Everybody even a full-blooded burstfrom Puccini's la Eoheme. The sheer audacity of 'Sunscreen' is almost matched with a dance version of 'Happy Feet' - arguably a dance number anyway, but here Charleston meets clubland. lf you have seen a Baz Luhrmann film you will know that for him, soundtrack music emphatically does not mean background music. Essentially this is a cracking party album that will date very quickly. And there's nothing wrong with that. ARr nno Souu - srcNposTs FoR CHRTSTTANs rr rHE ARrs (Solway) is an engaging book. The authors Hilary Brand and Adrienne Chaplin clearly have a breadth of knowledge and a real passion for art, pasttnd present. The blurb on the back claims, rather dubiously, that "More Christians than ever are studying and working in the arts"; the first chapter explores why Protesta ntism (especiall11 the evangelical wing) has alwaYs been uneasy with images, preferring the much more easily controlled 'word'. The knock-on effect of 400 Years of wilfully dismissing this part of 0ur cultural heritage cannot be calculated. The smashing of stainglass and'idols'is, thanKulty, in the past. Perhaps now Christian can began to explore the power of art. The rest of the book offers some 'signposts' (Art as a way of seeing, Art as honest labour and such like). For most part the book is talking about visual art, but arguments are pertinent to all areas of creative endeavours. Although, I disagreed with whole chunks of the bookthere is an admirable clarity of thought and generosity of spirit behind it all. Two ideas remain with me. Firstly, in an attemptto define art, the authors skim over many popular thumbnail definitions - art can be 'against the system, but doesn't have to be; it can be abstract, but doesn't have to be - and pick on the quality of 'elusiveness'. This, for me, is what separates the schockmeisters like Damien Hirst, the Chapman Bros or Tracey Emin from artists like Rachel Whiteread and Andy Goldsworthy, whose work will still be interesting in 50 years' time. The inability to 'elude' (rather then ra m-a-message-home) explains why the majority of 'Christian arf is so risible - and indeed is not art at all. Just how many times have you heard the phrase 'it is not Christian enough'? Secondly, they try to outline a Christian approach to making art. I was immediately wary of a book that attempts to inject biblical values into thinking about art. The authors are the first to admit that the Bible has next to nothing to say about art - or at least art as we know it. Yet they convinced me the gospel's values could transform art. ln today's post-modern times everything is done knowingly and is almost risk-free: there is nothing new left to say, you can only recycle. "lrony is the /rnf,ua franca o'f the post-modern age. For Generation X irony is the only way to communicate." But they object to this, "because irony communicates detachment and a lack of involvement. These qualities did not characterise Jesus." True enough. So what do Brand and Chaplin suggest? How can we make art that has something to say worthwhile about the human condition? "ln the place of irony offer vulnerability." (TrM W0oDC0CK) movement 25
Page 1 and 2: Mainiird lsrorpy Fent/,t Lewlr r/ l
Page 3 and 4: 't{ey sinner! Read this simplistic,
Page 5 and 6: Women wanted! Carie Sty/es wrltes;
Page 7 and 8: Whose business is it anyway? tr$x+:
Page 9 and 10: Looking for a New England John Hugh
Page 11 and 12: average jackpot of 1,2.5 million, b
Page 13 and 14: ,j. .1:, ., :zt,. r;,;lidd. iṬ g
Page 15 and 16: Friedrich Nietzsche Friedilch who?
Page 17 and 18: I REVELATION, like most apocalyptic
Page 19 and 20: Does video and dance music have a p
Page 21 and 22: A recent history of Palestine Histo
Page 23 and 24: -I I I rsrand rar rrom home. Not a
Page 25: Graeme Burk on why the Star Wars fi
Page 29 and 30: Having written biographies of Tolst
Page 31 and 32: ,rju SCM RESOURCES st that little b

Movement 103

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?