The Culture Beat

July 18, 2010

Movie Review: Inception

Filed under: Movies — Alex @ 10:29 pm


Christopher Nolan has always been a brainier than average director. His first big film Memento, the story of a man with short-term memory loss, was told backwards in order to help the audience identify with the confused hero. His two Batman films finally did what their predecessors had failed to–translate Batman to a live-action medium without being embarrassed about it, resulting in the best adaptation of the comic book character to film. Inception is another bravura feature that makes audiences think hard about the meaning of the story and that demands multiple screenings to appreciate the complexity of its plot and execution.

The problem is, it’s almost impossible to offer a typical reviewer’s description of the plot in order to tell you if it is a good rendering of it without giving away too much. If you’ve seen the trailers, you know that it involves Leonard DeCaprio’s character entering a person’s dream in order to steal secrets buried deep in their minds. Based on this basic concept, I can say that it resembles Nolan’s other films that owe much to film noir in tone and in this case, the crime-themed capers in its structure and its protagonist motivated by something more than ill-gotten riches. The trailers show astonishing special effects that will make the eventual home video releases a must-sea for some indication of how the spectacular visions were achieved. What’s important is that, despite the highly complex plotting, this is a script that explains the rules of the game as you go along, but you have to pay very close attention; and that the convoluted plot never keeps the audience from caring about the characters. This is a film that will take some time to digest for its thrills, themes and significance and is bound to encourage much discussion afterward, so see it with someone who loves movies.

July 6, 2010

The Return of Spider-Man to the Movies

Filed under: Movies,Uncategorized — Alex @ 11:45 am


This is but one of the several versions of media announcements of the new casting of an actor to play Peter Parker in Sony’s re-booted Spider-Man franchise. Fans and followers of movie news had been buzzing for months after plans were announced to drop Toby Maguire as star and Sam Raimi as director after the studio couldn’t come up with another concept for a fourth film. And so with a new director, Marc Webb and star, Andrew Garfield, Sony plans to make film featuring a younger Parker in reportedly less costly films.

The rationale is, I believe, as as follows: The article mentions the story and scheduling issues–probably scheduling issues because of story issues. The last film, Spider-Man 3, was so bad, cobbling together an incoherent cluster of villains and storylines that lacked the heart and inspiration of the first two. And this was because Spidey 2 had pretty much exhausted the character’s themes and character arc, distilling decades of comic narrative into a marvel-ous feature. There was no way to top it, but the studio’s sequel imperatives demanded a third film and it was a huge b.o. hit.

And star issues because, by now, frankly, Tony Maguire is a little too grown up and many fans are tired of Kirstin Dunst. I imagine the studio simply wanted a fresh start except they’d be foolish to to drop J. K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson–hey, if the James Bond franchise can reboot their character as a newly minted double-O, and keep Judy Dench as M, carried over from the previous Bond, Pierce Brosnan, the perfectly cast Simmons should stay as well.

Sam Raimi has said everything I think he could with the character but Sony can only see dollar signs in reviving the character on film–so, apparently the plan is to take him back to his high school years that the first film jumped over and make it closer to a CW teen-angst series thus hitting a major demographic and explore Spidey as a teenager with real problems–which had really been the source of his original appeal. But the picture of the new actor cast as PP looks more collegiate or beyond so this seem strange. In fact, he’s 26, having been born in 1983, so that’s no real difference between where we left Toby and where this guy’s starting, so not even that rationale seems right.

I’ve also read that these films will cost less and thus, it would seem, be smaller films, a less spectacular Spider-Man. Sounds like the Twilight approach: keeps costs down, release one every year or so and target the teens. Hey, and think of the possibilities if the next film actually has Spidey fighting vampires: (Scroll down)

It sure worked for the Twilight films–all that teen angst and blood sucking. And while we’re discussing vampires in Spidey’s next film, how about these guys?

OK, it does seem too calculating, but while I hope the films get Spider-Man right, but I don’t yet see a very different concept working here.

July 4, 2010

So, what did I think of the Lost finale?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Alex @ 8:27 pm


Any of you who have followed my following of Lost over the years at this blog have likely given up waiting for me to post something. I dawdled after it was over May 23rd, and was caught up in the controversy over finale, I kept intending to but alas, other business kept the procrastination going until now. But yesterday I found another reason to delay–for months. Our 16 year old son, Benjamin recently began watching the episodes on Netflix with us, starting at the first season and is thoroughly hooked. We had always intended to re-watch from the beginning to get a perspective on the series as a whole but now that he’s joined us, we’re urging him to avoid looking up anything about what happens from where we currently are, in the midst of the second season, to the sixth, lest he learn of any of the many developments to come. I’m even warning him from leafing through the books I’m using for my academic research on the series. Thus, my commentary here would possibly be read as he sometimes reads my blog. I therefore must stay mum about this until we finish sometime in late summer, I expect, when we order the Blu-Ray final season and special feature and see how he handles the conclusion. But if you want to try leaving a comment below, I will attempt to write you at the e-mail address you leave and respond one-on-one, something which I’d love to do, since I was quite affected by the finale and would love to share my thoughts with you.

Mini-Movie Review: The A-Team

Filed under: Movies,Uncategorized — Alex @ 8:13 pm


I saw this on a friend’s recommendation after reading mostly negative reviews–”big dumb fun,” he called it and I agreed after seeing it. The original 1980s television series it was based on was never big on logic or realism but that’s what made the idea of an elite group of army Rangers, pulling off elaborate missions for hire while fugitives from an unjust military sentence fun–the joie de vivre of a plan coming together perfectly if explosively. The new film probably cost more than the entire run of the series and has great replacements for the original cast, especially the surprisingly effective casting of usually serious Liam Neeson as happy warrior and strategic genius Hannibal Smith. If you’re unfamiliar with the series, I recommend you watch several episodes on Netflix’s streaming service to warm up your laughing muscles before the incendiary entertainment of The A-Team.

June 27, 2010

Toy Story 3 Goodies

Filed under: Movies — Alex @ 7:53 pm

Here’s some neat stuff related to the widely praised Toy Story sequel I reviewed a few days ago.

The Metaphysics of Woody: First off, Owen Gleiberman, movie critic at Entertainment Weekly has written two very insightful piece–his initial review and a follow-up post at the magazine’s site. In both, Gleiberman demonstrates why we are so involved in the life of these toys–whom Gleiberman recognizes as both “characters and objects,” and thus able to capture our imaginations because we understand how toys stir young minds in the creative activity of fantasy storytelling that helps children eventually experience empathy for others.

Seek and Ye Shall Find: For pure Pixar fun, go the Slashfilm article on the “Easter eggs,” hidden in the film. From the first Toy Story to now, Pixar has always embedded their set design with references to past works and characters and often previews a character from an upcoming feature in the corners or background of a new release. This article links to or displays a big toy box full of such hidden gems. This is part of the singular generosity of Pixar’s work that always gives the audience more than other films.

June 22, 2010

The Golden Age of Pixar Continues: A review of Toy Story 3

Filed under: General Pop Culture,Movies — Alex @ 5:10 pm


A generation of kids who grew up endlessly watching home videos of the Toy Story movies and other Pixar films can now in their twenties perhaps for the first time see these beloved characters on the big screen and in 3-D which at least partly explains the over $100 million in its opening box office over the weekend, not to mention to nearly $50 million in oversees box office. Woody, Buzz and the rest of the toy gang are indeed back and the joy of toys is too.

As my family and I walked into the theater, my son, anxious that the film might be another disappointing sequel, muttered, “please be good, please be good.” I responded, “I’m not worried,” since I knew that, unlike other studios, Pixar’s production process has insured that all along the four-year process it takes from conception to post-production, quality control principles allow anyone in the creative process to speak up and critique the story’s development. If you catch story problems at this point and offer corrections and improvements, which is how things work at Pixar, you eliminate 99% of a movie’s problems.

This union of audience appeal with artistic innovation using digital animation has resulted in a string of nothing but hits for the studio 11 feature films, unheard of in Hollywood history. Toy Story 3 is perhaps the best film yet from Pixar, an amazing achievement given the risks of a second sequel when other franchises begin to show creative exhaustion (Shrek 3, Spider-Man 3 for example) and the demands of executives to squeeze more dollars out of a popular property when there are no good new ideas. But this being a sequel to the revloutionary first Pixar feature, the team was determined to get it right.

Andy’s toys have been gradually left behind as their owner’s teen years have naturally drawn him away from childish play to more age-appropriate interests. Woody is the only toy Andy plans to take to college, so the rest of the toys, feeling neglected, welcome a move to a nearby daycare center. Thus begins their next great adventure as they discover that not having a child who owns them means not being special anymore. And there’s more than the rough treatment by toddlers too young to play appropriately with them–the gang soon realizes they’ve been set up by other toys to serve as virtual prisoners in the daycare center. As they did in the earlier films, this involves another Odyssey-like journey of escape back to Andy, if they can find him in time, except this is the most dangerous adventure yet, and probably the funniest–the trademark Pixar rapid joke frequency we’ve experienced since the first film is firmly operational as every gag possibility is full exploited–only Pixar’s writers seem to know the magic of creating laughs that appeal to both child and adult without depending on mostly pop culture references, as the Shrek films have, to a fault.

And the Disney Digital 3-D process adds depth to the images although I question the necessity of this in such well-executed storytelling–I peeked over the top of the glasses several times and saw how much brighter the picture was without them and prefer that to the 3-D image that quickly loses its wow factor.

The level of invention is so high in the film that I couldn’t help thinking it seems ten times more creative than anything in the family category and most others as well (as evidenced by the groan-inducing trailers for upcoming kids animated films). This generosity continues in the famous Pixar end-credit sequence that takes us from the deeply moving climax back to guffaws and joy. Frankly, I feel privileged to live in an era where such instant classics dependably come to us annually, as if Walt Disney was back on the job–in a way, he is; Pixar’s wizards, led by Disney creative honcho John Lasseter, have always loved Disney’s animation classics and sought to perpetuate his vision and spirit. In a summer poor in mainstream movie entertainment, enjoy another miraculous work of great all-ages storytelling.

May 30, 2010

The Prince of Persia at the Lake Worth Drive-In

Filed under: General Pop Culture,Movies — Alex @ 10:06 pm


We saw the latest Jerry Bruckheimer-produced blockbuster film last night. And by we, I mean my son Benjamin, age 16, and I. Usually, my wife is part of our movie-going trio but we were going to Ben’s first drive-in movie experience, and Judith wasn’t particularly interested in the film, plus, she knew she’d be in the back seat of the mini-van and wouldn’t be able to see as well. We guys batched it the two-mile trek down to the Lake Worth Drive-In. We’d passed numerous time before while I wondered when we could finally introduce Benjamin to the outdoor movie experience that had been so popular in the postwar era before falling to the onslaught of proliferating multiplexes in the 1980s.

Drive-in movies had been popular in the 1950s affluence as they satisfied the population’s desire to not just see a movie but to recreate, to get out of the house into the great outside. A drive-in was sort of outdoors but with the added mobility of sitting in your big American car with the goodies you’d brought with you in the trunk cooler or picnic basket. The speakers hung on the rows of posts that looked toward the great white screen. Some drive-ins had sloped grass and gravel parking lines so that your car was angled up toward the screen to enable better viewing. I saw Walt Disney’s Swiss Family Robinson as a child as my first drive-in experience and will never forget the opening scene of a wooden ship desperately tossed on a stormy sea against the night sky behind the screen. The speaker box hung on your open car window with the tinny soundtrack playing.

The best part about a drive-in was that you could get out of the car and walk to the concession stand while able to turn to watch the movie, and perhaps still hear the audio playing from nearby speakers, never missing a thing. Of course for the youth demographic, drive-ins weren’t family affairs so much as infamous passion pits where heavy petting and more could occur in the privacy of a car’s cabin. As car culture faded in the 1970s oil crisis, so did the popularity of the drive-in as the seasonal nature of its outdoor venue and less than theatrical quality of the picture gave way to the blockbuster era of special effects and Dolby sound and variety of the new multiplexes.

Living in south Florida, there’s no winter to shut things down so the Lake Worth Drive-In, like others in the region does fine with the right kind of movie. We drove in and could see that there were two screens, one with its back to the road, and the other in the far corner of the large lot. We paid $6 for each ticket, not bad for an evening show. The box office clerk told us we were at screen 1 and to tune our FM radio to 93.7 for audio. We drove down and onto the large paved lot with painted lanes and parking slots. I found a place just off center and on the third “row” back out of four row. We could see plenty of cars already there, most of them either mini-vans and SUVs, most of them with their rear facing the screen–as in this picture, taken during the last Indiana Jones movie’s release–at first, this was a little disorienting because it looked like they were facing an invisible screen opposite screen 1, but I quickly caught on that with the vehicle’s hatch doors open, passengers could spread out cushions and blankets to lay down and watch. Many folks had camp and lawn chairs set out besides their vehicles to stretch their legs and get comfortable.

Ben and I headed to the concession stand (pictured here) to check out the goodies. It was a crowded structure on the first floor with a smaller projection booth on the roof where images could be shown at both screens at right angles to each other. Ben ordered some cheese nachos and I got a small buttered popcorn for $3.00, still better than a regular theater concession price. We got back in plenty of time to tune our radio to the right station and soon the movie began.

It was strange watching a relatively small image behind our windshield, less bright than a theatrical screen, but the sound was fantastic coming through our car’s speakers; my seat vibrated with low frequency hums during the action sequences. And the movie?

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a typical summer blockbuster wanna-be, a good number of CGI special effects at the end and peppered throughout, but it was surprisingly straightforward in tone, lacking the tongue-in-cheek attitude I was expecting. The story of a street urchin, Dastan, adopted by the wise king of Persia and made the youngest of three royal brothers, it’s actor Jake Gyllenhaal’s second foray into blockbusterdom after being part of the ensemble of the disaster film, The Day After. Lots of actors who make their reputation in small independent films will do blockbuster rolls to earn big bucks while they take a pay cut on their more artistic endeavors, and as Johnny Depp showed playing Captain Jack Sparrow and Robert Downey Jr. did playing Tony Stark/Iron Man, one can have one’s artistic integrity and blockbuster fortunes too. Jake’s body is super toned up for the athletic role of the adventurous prince based on the video game from which the movie draws both its name and much of its plot.

A mystical dagger is the sought for object since it can be used to roll back time and thus change history so there are plenty of chases, fights, battles and derring-do but although it doesn’t take itself very seriously, it isn’t nearly as campy as Pirates of the Carribean. In fact, its plot is borrowed from recent current events. The Persians, led by Dastan’s oldest brother, invade a sacred city based on a spy’s false report that the city is forging weapons to use against Persia. These false pretenses are part of a larger scheme but somewhere in the writing stage, someone must have noticed the resemblance to the U.S.’s invasion of Iraq based on intelligence reporting Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But there seems to be no deeper ideological message so this isn’t Avatar. It did occur to me that none of the Caucasian featured players are close to being any ethnicity played on the screen and everyone talks in some type of British accent (to avoid sounding stereotypically “Arabic?”) so one really can’t take this Hollywood hoohaw with anything but a block of salt historically.

The script seems very much by-the-book in it’s structure and this familiarity may be too predictable for some, but the treasured object at the core of the story allow the climax to be surprisingly moving and heartfelt. It felt somewhat like an Alladin story in its style and lack of snarkiness. Benjamin liked it and thinks its the best movie adaptation of a video game, a task full of failures as moviemakers have so often missed what makes a successful adaptation from interactive to straight cinematic narrative. And he liked the drive-in experience but I’m not sure when we’ll find just the right movie to fit the exterior conditions and altered viewing conditions, but at least now he knows something of the wider American filmgoing experience.

May 16, 2010

The Faces Left Behind

Filed under: Uncategorized — Alex @ 9:58 pm


Now for something completely different from the usual Culture Beat topics. A few weeks ago I had the chance to re-enter a world I grew up in and see faces I hadn’t seen in a generation. An uncle, my mother’s youngest sibling, died after a short illness and I drove from West Palm Beach where I now live, to Valdosta, GA, the small southern city I grew up in. Fifteen miles above the Florida line, it was as deep in the South as you can be before, going into the Florida peninsula, you continue downward until you move out of the south into something like the colony of culturally northeast where so many New Yorkers and other “northerners” now live full or part-time. The last time I had lived in Valdosta was in the latter half of the 1980s before moving to other parts of the southeast like Virginia, Tennessee and Atlanta.

When I got to the funeral home, I arrived with some trepidation; would there be faces of folks I’d known in my childhood who might remember me but I not recall them? My family was pretty well-known throughout the town so that this was a common experience–being greeted by a friend of my parents but awkwardly trying to recall who this gracious person was talking to me. Anyway, the funeral home was full of people lined up to meet my uncle’s surviving family, a testament to how loved he was. I soon met a man who I last known as a classmate in high school. He’d stayed to sell insurance, probably the family business, and though recognizable, showed the advance into middle age, his dark hair now thinner and grayer. He, of course, recognized me immediately and was as warm as ever. I saw a cluster of people across the room speaking to an older couple and someone reminded me that it was Mr. Wiggins who lived with his family a few blocks from my house. He must be in his 80s by now but his big smiling face and gracious manner was as strong as ever. What is it about insurance salesmen in small towns?

I knew there must be more people I knew and who must know me and wished we could all be wearing name tags like we were at some high school or family reunion so that we could quickly catch up–indeed, during that visit and the next day during the funeral, I felt eyes on me as they sought to recall from the recesses of memory just who I and my brothers were. These ghosts of forty or more years past haunted me the next few days as I pondered the choices of my life.

View Larger Map
(Embedded here is one of the many beautiful moss-shaded streets in Valdosta–follow the arrows for a little tour.)

Like a lot of Americans, I have mixed feelings about my hometown. Because it’s where you grew up, it’s the primal scene of your social orientation. I’ve used the word “gracious” more than once because that is the culture of southern middle-class people. One woman at the funeral reception saw me standing around talking to no one and struck up a conversation where she mentioned being a bridge partner with my mother–she initiated the conversation simply because she was a nice person who delighted in recalling the pleasantness of past associations. She wasn’t talky, she simply knew how to make a person relaxed and welcome, a pretty common trait that make “southern hospitality” so distinct.

I left Valdosta in my mid-twenties to follow my vision of serving God with a missions organization elsewhere in the country. I met my wife during this time; she’s from Illinois and when I introduced her to one of my southern gentlemen relations, he remarked as how the Lord could bring me together with a Yankee. I’m not saying it was provincial thinking, but it did sort of capture the nature of living in a certain small area all of your life and how remarkable it is when someone ventures out into a larger world. I left because I believed I was pursuing a vision and a purpose that couldn’t be found in the small world of my youth. My brothers did the same, leaving to live in other parts of the south and must have felt the same strange sense of wonder and stirred memories at the world left behind.

For this was the world that might have been if I had been more content and settled–these folks have the experience of being in the same community all their lives, of seeing friends and family grow, age, mature, struggle and be upheld by local bonds. I, on the other hand, have moved quite a few times as my vocational needs determined. I’ve met many good people but my ongoing relationships are not many and are spread out across the country and maintained by e-mail and occasional phone calls. Can I say who has the better deal? Should I?

I will. I wouldn’t have met my wonderful wife of over 25 years, nor had exposure to the ideas an opportunities I now enjoy in a larger world of ideas and vocation that allows me to contribute immeasurably to the minds of many young people. It’s axiomatic to say that each choice we make forecloses others, and the longer we move on, the narrower our options until one day we look back and wonder, not with regret, but curiosity, what might have been.

May 12, 2010

Summer Movie Kick-Off: Iron Man 2

Filed under: Movies,Uncategorized — Alex @ 4:18 pm


The kids aren’t out of school yet but the onset of the summer movie season, having crept back to make room for earlier releases, scores a box office touchdown with the sequel to 2008′s superhero funfest Iron Man, with Robert Downey Jr. The original film was a nice alternative to the brooding darkness of the Batman films and the angst of Spider-Man. Downey’s Tony Stark was an flippant, eccentric weapons developer who grows a conscience when he discovers that his business partner is selling his company’s high-tech munitions to the country’s enemies and invents the ultimate corporate suit of advanced armor in order to personally clean up the mess. When the movie ended with Stark revealing his true iron identity to a press conference, the audience knew that the wild times were just beginning.

And the sequel picks up a few months later as Stark/Iron Man has, in his words before a meddling Senate hearing, “privatized world peace” with his Iron Man technology, which he refuses to share with the US military. But the wily Stark of course must begin the movie with both outer and inner challenges to confront and we soon see both: the vengeful son of former Stark employee is using Tony’s arc reactor technology to turn himself into the supervillain Whiplash while Stark himself faces the slowly increasing toxic effects of an element used in the personal arc reactor that powers his heart and the Iron Man suit. More so than in the long-running (since the 1960s) comic, Downey’s Tony Stark is a complicated hero, often his own worst enemy, who must face father issues, and his own inability to connect to those closest to him, Girl Friday Pepper Potts and military liaison James Rhodes.

The filmmakers took a chance that the actors’ appeal and interaction would keep audiences interested during the middle part of the story that has less action than you might expect as the various plotlines play out and converge in a predictably explosive and exciting climax. There’s nothing much in the movie to talk about as one sits during the closing credits–no great themes or ambiguity to stimulate debate, just a romp of a comic-book story. But as in the first film, those True Believers who sit through the long credit sequence are rewarded with a glimpse at what Marvel Studios are cooking up next so stay and you’ll get the full value of your ticket.

April 26, 2010

St. Jack of the Lost Island?

Filed under: Faith Issues,Television,Uncategorized — Alex @ 11:23 pm

This week, there is no episode of Lost, so let’s take this moment to contemplate yet another way in which the singular series opens itself to interpretations resonant of a life of faith. Anyone who’s read much from discussion boards or blogs of the endlessly analyzed show knows that there are elements that plainly encourage ponderings of its religious and philosophical symbolism. Heck, every viewer knows of the faith (represented by John Locke) and science (represented by Dr. Jack Shepherd.) is one of the Lost‘s main oppositions. We’re not exactly sure what the faith is in, or toward except that Locke believed in the healing or redemptive power of the island (until he was murdered, that is) and that Jack was a thoroughgoing materialist.

But as the final season winds down, the poles have symbolically reversed. The smokey thing that has assumed Locke’s form rejects any belief in any special qualities of the island that has been his prison (“It’s just a damn island,” he declares as he strives to gain his escape. But Jack has also shifted his attitude profoundly. After spending most of four seasons striving to lead the castaways, then escape the island, he learns that he was wrong to leave and returns a different man, no longer sure of much of anything anymore, except that somehow, he was meant to be on the island. He allows others, like Sawyer last season, to take the lead until he became convinced that exploding Jughead, the nuclear warhead, would interact with the island’s strange electromagnetic power to somehow change everyone’s destiny and avoid years of pain.

Dr. Jack examining his reflection in the Sideways world.
But even that seemed uncertain as the new season began in February. The first episode began with Jack on Oceanic 815, as if nothing had happened to cause its crash. When he goes to the plane’s restroom though, he stares at his image in the mirror with a looks of confusion, as if something isn’t quite right. And so have others in what was soon known as the Sideways world of familiar characters who never crashed on the island, which alternates with the same characters continuing their captivity on the island. Which is real? Both? Neither?

Jack seems to have the most developed character arc as he now watches events transpire on the island and no longer tries to control them. When, in last week’s episode, after sensing that staying on the sailboat with the others on their way to Hydra island was repeating a mistake, he literally took a leap of faith and stepped off the boat to affirm that the island wasn’t finished with him and he must stay–even though he wound up back in the hands of the Fake Locke. (If you haven’t seen the series, then you must be totally confused by this and I recommend renting the first five seasons and the online sixth season eps before continuing.)

So to return to the applicability of the narrative to faith issues, I was reminded of a certain castaway while reading a passage from St. Augustine Confessions yesterday. See if you’re thinking what I’m thinking, Pinky.

Imagine a man in whom the tumult of the flesh goes silent, in whom the images of earth, of water, of air and of the skies cease to resound. His soul turns quiet and, self-reflecting no longer, it transcends itself. Dreams and visions end. So too does all speech and every gesture, everything in fact which comes to be only to pass away. All these things cry out: “We did not make ourselves. It is the Eternal One who made us.”

I don’t wish to overinterpret this, but I think of Jack when I read this. He has allowed his soul to stop striving to force things to happen. He knows he doesn’t know everything, in fact, he knows very little, but he does know that he’s on the island for a reason and needs to stay. This reminds me of the attitude of the writer of Psalm 131:2:

But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.

If EW’s Lost commentator Jeff Jensen is correct (go here and scroll until he gets to where he tells us what he thinks Lost is about) that the show is about illustrating the crises that religious faith addresses, then there will be all sort of applications one can make of such parts of the series that will not definitive as to what is really going on, do provide compelling images of the struggles that people experience while going through dark nights of the soul and wrestling with angels. Well, that’s my two cents of how this fascinating show speaks to my inner pilgrim. We’ll see if Jack’s journey pays off and his faith is rewarded.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.