People tend to think of summer as the relaxing time of year. It's warm outside and, very like moths, we are drawn to the bright sun to burn our skin, swim in the sea, lake, pool, wade in a creek, dig in the flower and vegetable gardens. The kids are free of schoolwork, and parents get more weekends off to camp or picnic. To want relax is not in and of itself wrong, so don't feel guilty about taking a break!
Rest is not idleness, and to lie sometimes on the grass under trees on a summer's day, listening to the murmur of the water, or watching the clouds float across the sky, is by no means a waste of time.
- Sir John Lubbock
Friday, June 30, 2006
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Robe Review: Changing History
I finished The Robe a few days ago.
Suffice to say, it was good. Well written, in the sense that it was an easy read, understandable. Not spectacular, so sometimes not as riveting, but it didn't stay boring for longer than a page.
Now to the heart of my engaging post: I do believe that Lloyd Douglas tried to add to the deeds and miracles of Jesus.
Yes, I know that Jesus must have performed hundreds and thousands more miracles than actually specifically recorded. But, even so, to make up a plausible miracle and tie it into one of the first miracle of Jesus, such as Jesus performing something on his way to the wedding in Cana.
First of all, it says in John 2:11 that the water turned to wine was the first miracle of Jesus. If he had really stopped by the house of an invalid young woman and miraculously gave her the most beautiful voice, why would one of the disciples have recorded that the second miracle was the first? Besides, according to The Robe, everyone knew that Jesus had stopped at Miriam's house and came late to the wedding (none of which is heard of in John) and something wonderful happened, because Miriam was no longer sad for herself and she sang beautifully. But none of this is in the Bible!
It is one thing to put a character into a book and have them be the recipient of some miracle, such as sight from blindness. Nevertheless, it is a far different issue to put in a main character and have details about their miracle, how it came about, and to put words into the mouth of the Healer, Jesus.
There is a way to write and 'make up' more miracles and deeds of Jesus than is specified in the New Testament, but creating detailed miracles which play an important part in the book but are not in the Bible is not the way to do it.
Douglas did the portrayal of the Tribune whose garrison was commanded to put Jesus to death very well. The details of the crucifixion were fuzzy, but that was meant to be since the Tribune was so young he let himself get drunk since he had to do order the horrifying task of nailing an innocent man to a wooden cross. I am glad it was not too graphic and tried to draw a portrait of Jesus or outline the whole scene of what Jesus did before he was crucified. So why didn't he write about the miracles in that way? Why couldn't Douglas have used the main miracles which the disciples recorded as part of his story, instead of making up his own miracles?
Suffice to say, it was good. Well written, in the sense that it was an easy read, understandable. Not spectacular, so sometimes not as riveting, but it didn't stay boring for longer than a page.
Now to the heart of my engaging post: I do believe that Lloyd Douglas tried to add to the deeds and miracles of Jesus.
Yes, I know that Jesus must have performed hundreds and thousands more miracles than actually specifically recorded. But, even so, to make up a plausible miracle and tie it into one of the first miracle of Jesus, such as Jesus performing something on his way to the wedding in Cana.
First of all, it says in John 2:11 that the water turned to wine was the first miracle of Jesus. If he had really stopped by the house of an invalid young woman and miraculously gave her the most beautiful voice, why would one of the disciples have recorded that the second miracle was the first? Besides, according to The Robe, everyone knew that Jesus had stopped at Miriam's house and came late to the wedding (none of which is heard of in John) and something wonderful happened, because Miriam was no longer sad for herself and she sang beautifully. But none of this is in the Bible!
It is one thing to put a character into a book and have them be the recipient of some miracle, such as sight from blindness. Nevertheless, it is a far different issue to put in a main character and have details about their miracle, how it came about, and to put words into the mouth of the Healer, Jesus.
There is a way to write and 'make up' more miracles and deeds of Jesus than is specified in the New Testament, but creating detailed miracles which play an important part in the book but are not in the Bible is not the way to do it.
Douglas did the portrayal of the Tribune whose garrison was commanded to put Jesus to death very well. The details of the crucifixion were fuzzy, but that was meant to be since the Tribune was so young he let himself get drunk since he had to do order the horrifying task of nailing an innocent man to a wooden cross. I am glad it was not too graphic and tried to draw a portrait of Jesus or outline the whole scene of what Jesus did before he was crucified. So why didn't he write about the miracles in that way? Why couldn't Douglas have used the main miracles which the disciples recorded as part of his story, instead of making up his own miracles?
Friday, June 23, 2006
Guys and Dolls: The Beginning
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And on the earth lived men and women. And thus began the never ending question of how to treat each other. I'm not talking about kids or married folks, but rather from the teenage years on to however old a single man or woman is. It all applies the same, once they notice each other and once they become attracted to the weirdness of the opposite gender.
The first thing that must be done begins before your children become teenagers. Boys must be taught to respect women, and not just any age group of women. Girls need to be taught to not take advantage of a guy's respect for her, the girls must not tease the boys about being men. The girls must be taught to appreciate a boy who opens a door for her, or who lets her go first in line, or who includes her in games. Girls should not act 'independent' and force the guy to go first so that she can prove she can be as tough as the guys and wait behind other people in line.
The daughters must not seek boys' attentions. Their father is responsible for giving them the masculine love they need. If that man-love tank is full, she will not be driven to look for love elsewhere. Logically enough, this lack of father-daughter love in the modern family today is where the infectious boyfriend-girlfriend disease springs from. If the girls are guarded by their father's protective love, and if they respect their fathers, they will avoid the flirtatious show-offs.
The sons must not seek to attract the girls. This begins with the parents teaching the boys that boasting, bragging, or showing off to other boys or girls is arrogant pride. There is a difference between a boy being proud of some accomplishment and letting other people tell him he did a good job and being humble about it, and a boy who calls people to gather around him while he tells or shows his magnificant deeds and boasts that he's the best at it. There is also the boaster who doesn't call for attention but acts like he knows he is the best, like he is the coolest kid in school. The sons must seek to accomplish good, high goals, and when they do so to accept whatever praise but not to look for it. Then they must learn to quietly continue their hard work. If the mother and father praise their son and encourage him to keep up his toils, the son will seek to please them, and will not need the cheers of his peers.
The first thing that must be done begins before your children become teenagers. Boys must be taught to respect women, and not just any age group of women. Girls need to be taught to not take advantage of a guy's respect for her, the girls must not tease the boys about being men. The girls must be taught to appreciate a boy who opens a door for her, or who lets her go first in line, or who includes her in games. Girls should not act 'independent' and force the guy to go first so that she can prove she can be as tough as the guys and wait behind other people in line.
The daughters must not seek boys' attentions. Their father is responsible for giving them the masculine love they need. If that man-love tank is full, she will not be driven to look for love elsewhere. Logically enough, this lack of father-daughter love in the modern family today is where the infectious boyfriend-girlfriend disease springs from. If the girls are guarded by their father's protective love, and if they respect their fathers, they will avoid the flirtatious show-offs.
The sons must not seek to attract the girls. This begins with the parents teaching the boys that boasting, bragging, or showing off to other boys or girls is arrogant pride. There is a difference between a boy being proud of some accomplishment and letting other people tell him he did a good job and being humble about it, and a boy who calls people to gather around him while he tells or shows his magnificant deeds and boasts that he's the best at it. There is also the boaster who doesn't call for attention but acts like he knows he is the best, like he is the coolest kid in school. The sons must seek to accomplish good, high goals, and when they do so to accept whatever praise but not to look for it. Then they must learn to quietly continue their hard work. If the mother and father praise their son and encourage him to keep up his toils, the son will seek to please them, and will not need the cheers of his peers.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Rebel Without A Cause
I just saw the classic James Dean movie last night, for the first time. I know it's famous, but I never really understood what it was about, and thought I'd give it a chance. I have never really heard people review it or talk about it other than to refernce it, so I'd do a little review of my own thoughts and reactions to it.
Warning: This is a major spoiler! :-)
James Dean is a pretty good actor, convincing as a good kid gone bad (as the back of the movie case helpfully explains). But why was this 'good' kid suddenly bad? We gather throughout the first 15 - 20 minutes that he is driven to do these bad things (such as get drunk, and gets into trouble often, apparently) by the horrible family he has, the zoo, or circus as he tells the guy at the police station in the 2nd scene. His parents constantly bicker and knit-pick.
It was shocking to me how the mother was so disrespectful to her husband, breaking him down and outlining his faults in front of her son, her mother, and the police. She didn't rest from trying to control him. She even tries to dissuade Jim from going to the police when he needs to, she says "No one has to know! Jim! Why should you be the only one? What about the others? They were there, too!" But he replies, "But I will know, and I was there!" He knew it didn't matter who else was there, he was there and that alone was enough to create a problem.
The father had similar problems, he would argue and quarrel with his wife also. But his main fault was not being a man, not standing up and making a decision. This is an awful thing to happen to a family, when the father figure will not lead his family. That is the worst kind of authority, the kind that thinks it can't or shouldn't do anything. This problem is a main theme, because Jim (James Dean) tells his father to stand up several times, to make his mother stop trying to ignore the real reasons why she keeps making them move. But even though you can see Jim is torn up by how weak and wimpy his father is, even though you can see his eyes are begging his father to actually be a father, his father never even attempts to take authority like a man.
Jim's problem was not that he was a good kid gone bad, but rather a good kid driven bad, a good kid without guidance, a good kid who needed love, and leadership.
I still didn't understand what the whole problem with Judy was, but it probably was, again, all about her parents loving her. A few short scenes showed that her father didn't want her showing him affection, and that drove her to seek that manly affection from the bad boys who were willing to give it. She acted cool, acted tough when she was with them, but she was also drawn to Jim who was calm, and didn't take the bad boys too seriously. He didn't brush them off, but he didn't show fear or let them think they were a real threat. He handled himself well, showing leadership after he won a knife-fight and said "I'll meet you again (because Jim knew they wouldn't want to stop) but not here, not now." That sort of leadership was attractive to Judy, because her father seemed to not know how to treat her since she grew into a young lady.
The other kid, John, or Plato as he liked to be called, also craved to have family love. His father died, but Plato changes the story two different times, and when Jime points this out he says "What difference does it make? He's dead." And Plato's mother apparently leaves the home constantly, and sends checks for the black housekeeper to take care of him. Plato latches onto Jim, because he doesn't shrug Plato away or ignore him. Jim treats Plato like he is someone, and Plato helps him figure out the ropes (since Jim was a new kid at the school) when he first tangled with the "kids" (the bad boys). When they all become friends after a terrible accident towards the end of the movie, Jim tells Judy "He made us his family."
This is the story of three very different kids, with the same problem: a lack of love and leadership. If the parents aren't home, or refuse to teach their children, how on earth are their kids supposed to turn out good? They will leave the home and go looking for that love, for someone to look up to.
As it turns out, they found what they needed from each other. Jim is a wise (as far as a public highschooler can be!) leader, Judy looks up to Jim and is tender with Plato, who fawns on both of them and is happy just to be wanted.
This movie is a tragedy, but I liked it. I didn't have any idea what the movie was really about when I started watching it, so the character of Jim was a surprise. A pleasant surprise. No wonder it's a classic.
Warning: This is a major spoiler! :-)
James Dean is a pretty good actor, convincing as a good kid gone bad (as the back of the movie case helpfully explains). But why was this 'good' kid suddenly bad? We gather throughout the first 15 - 20 minutes that he is driven to do these bad things (such as get drunk, and gets into trouble often, apparently) by the horrible family he has, the zoo, or circus as he tells the guy at the police station in the 2nd scene. His parents constantly bicker and knit-pick.
It was shocking to me how the mother was so disrespectful to her husband, breaking him down and outlining his faults in front of her son, her mother, and the police. She didn't rest from trying to control him. She even tries to dissuade Jim from going to the police when he needs to, she says "No one has to know! Jim! Why should you be the only one? What about the others? They were there, too!" But he replies, "But I will know, and I was there!" He knew it didn't matter who else was there, he was there and that alone was enough to create a problem.
The father had similar problems, he would argue and quarrel with his wife also. But his main fault was not being a man, not standing up and making a decision. This is an awful thing to happen to a family, when the father figure will not lead his family. That is the worst kind of authority, the kind that thinks it can't or shouldn't do anything. This problem is a main theme, because Jim (James Dean) tells his father to stand up several times, to make his mother stop trying to ignore the real reasons why she keeps making them move. But even though you can see Jim is torn up by how weak and wimpy his father is, even though you can see his eyes are begging his father to actually be a father, his father never even attempts to take authority like a man.
Jim's problem was not that he was a good kid gone bad, but rather a good kid driven bad, a good kid without guidance, a good kid who needed love, and leadership.
I still didn't understand what the whole problem with Judy was, but it probably was, again, all about her parents loving her. A few short scenes showed that her father didn't want her showing him affection, and that drove her to seek that manly affection from the bad boys who were willing to give it. She acted cool, acted tough when she was with them, but she was also drawn to Jim who was calm, and didn't take the bad boys too seriously. He didn't brush them off, but he didn't show fear or let them think they were a real threat. He handled himself well, showing leadership after he won a knife-fight and said "I'll meet you again (because Jim knew they wouldn't want to stop) but not here, not now." That sort of leadership was attractive to Judy, because her father seemed to not know how to treat her since she grew into a young lady.
The other kid, John, or Plato as he liked to be called, also craved to have family love. His father died, but Plato changes the story two different times, and when Jime points this out he says "What difference does it make? He's dead." And Plato's mother apparently leaves the home constantly, and sends checks for the black housekeeper to take care of him. Plato latches onto Jim, because he doesn't shrug Plato away or ignore him. Jim treats Plato like he is someone, and Plato helps him figure out the ropes (since Jim was a new kid at the school) when he first tangled with the "kids" (the bad boys). When they all become friends after a terrible accident towards the end of the movie, Jim tells Judy "He made us his family."
This is the story of three very different kids, with the same problem: a lack of love and leadership. If the parents aren't home, or refuse to teach their children, how on earth are their kids supposed to turn out good? They will leave the home and go looking for that love, for someone to look up to.
As it turns out, they found what they needed from each other. Jim is a wise (as far as a public highschooler can be!) leader, Judy looks up to Jim and is tender with Plato, who fawns on both of them and is happy just to be wanted.
This movie is a tragedy, but I liked it. I didn't have any idea what the movie was really about when I started watching it, so the character of Jim was a surprise. A pleasant surprise. No wonder it's a classic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)