Metamorphosis

Change.

We either embrace it or we fear it.

As we move into the fall season I can't help but reflect on the changing of seasons: both in nature and in our spirits. After all, it is a part of life for things to be born, for things to grow, for things to die. Spiritually, I grow, I change, I transform. 

What is it about change that causes such drastic responses among humans?

Change is a part of life that is intrinsically linked with renewal. Things must die so that new things may be born. There must be change for there to be life. It is in itself the very evidence of life, both in flesh and in spirit. 

If I'm not experiencing change as a person, then, could it be said that I am not truly living?

Renewal is the key.

We fear deep down that something in the process of transformation will go wrong. We fear that perhaps we will end up worse off. We doubt God himself.

Instead of taking this "risk", we stagnate. Content to remain in stasis, we simply exist.

But existing is not living.

I must embrace the change, and take a leap of faith in order to truly live. Letting go of what I've known I must trust that personal growth, personal transformation, and personal life all stem from allowing God to change me. It stems from allowing Him to transform my mind, which will transform my actions, which may lead me to a place that is "uncomfortable." 

But is it truly uncomfortable if I'm actually alive? Maybe I'm truly living for the first time.

Scripturally, change is crucial to experiencing life. At the most fundamental level, I must experience a complete change in identity to walk in the way of Love. Christ himself replaced my heart completely with his own for me to be able to love, to live.

It's not simply a matter of experiencing a change of situation, but a change of self. 

A metamorphosis. 

I must be transformed by the renewing is my mind. I must lose my life to find it. 

Living requires change.

Change requires sacrifice.

But once I experience this sacrifice, this change; THEN I may truly live. 

Confession: Worship

I have a confession.

I don't want to worship.

I am tired physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

Yet, it is in this moment of defiance that I suddenly realize something crucial about myself and God.

I am to worship God whether I feel like it or not.

Worship in the 21st Century has become heavily associated with emotionalism, and at times we even equate an emotional response to a musical moment to the Holy Spirit working in our hearts.

Just as God HIMSELF is unchanging, His worthiness of worship remains unchanging.

"Through Him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name." - Hebrews 13:15

Nowhere in scripture is it ever implied that our worship is to be dictated by our own condition. Worship is instead spiritual prostration. It is saying "You are God. I am not."
Worship is playing a song of praise even when the pain in your hands nearly cripples you. Worship is glorifying God even when I feel abandoned. Worship is denying myself.

Worship is evidenced by selflessness.

Worship is the attitude of Jesus. Worship is the realization that no matter what I am going through, GOD is still GOD. Worship acknowledges this.

When I think about it, I receive comfort when I am truly worshiping in a constantly changing life situation, because the object of my worship remains unchanged.

He is steadfast when my soul faints. He retains control even when my mind loses control. When my struggles overwhelm me, His victory over them on the Cross still stands. When my heart doubts, his constant love keeps a thread of hope alive in my soul.

When I feel I can offer nothing, and instead simply acknowledge the inadequacy of my desires and efforts; when I cease striving, THAT is when I am truly worshiping.

Do I want to worship all the time? No.
But that is ok.

It is what I choose to do next that is important. Do I cave in to my desires? Or acknowledge LIFE.
"To worship is to touch LIFE." - (Richard Foster)

It's in those moments of sacrificial worship that HE is glorified all the more.

A sacrifice of praise is a body presented as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our spiritual act of worship.

- Bowman
9/21/13

The Hunger Games - Movie Review (updated!!)

The Hunger Games

rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images - all involving teens

Filmmaking: ★★★★☆

Moral Rating: ★★★ ☆ ☆


After an enormous buildup of hype and marketing, Gary Ross' big screen adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel "The Hunger Games" is finally in theaters. Starring Jennifer Lawrence (X-Men: First Class), and Josh Hutcherson (Journey 2, The Kids Are Alright), The Hunger Games certainly delivers in both emotional impact and intense action.


Set in a futuristic totalitarian country called "Panem", The Hunger Games follows Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence), a free spirited girl from District 12 who volunteers to take her younger sister's place in the 74th annual Hunger Games, a brutal competition to the death instated by the Capitol to keep each district in line. As Katniss and her fellow tribute Peeta (Hutcherson) struggle to survive the bloody arena, her acts of courage and selflessness begin to create hope for an oppressed people. (This is all I'm giving you as far as plot is concerned due to the absolute wealth of summaries online right now) As far as stories go, Collins' story is nothing particularly revolutionary, but the emotional impact of the characters and their situations is far reaching. Both on the page AND on screen, Katniss Everdeen is an incredibly sympathetic heroine. Her actions are inspiring and by the time we reach the arena (over an hour into the film) we are anxious for her survival, emotionally tied to her struggles, and fully engrossed in her story. 


The characters indeed are what drives The Hunger Games and in my opinion a major part of what makes the story work. In such a brutal setting we must have something hopeful to hold onto. Both Lawrence as Katniss and Hutcherson as Peeta shine in their respective roles. Their relationship is heartfelt and sincere and both young actors bring life to their roles onscreen. While some of the other casting choices were curious, they surprisingly work when everything comes together. Lenny Kravitz as Cinna, Donald Sutherland as President Snow and Woody Harrelson as the drunkard Haymitch are all examples of this. Perhaps the most surprising though was an almost unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket. I found myself chuckling more than once at her quirks and banter with the other characters.

There is a lot that I like about The Hunger Games. The cinematography was great. The music was awesome. The score by James Newton Howard was superb. The sound editing, direction, art direction etc... it all lent itself to creating a fresh new environment on screen. HOWEVER, there is one glaring issue with The Hunger Games that i want to discuss for a moment. That would be the incredibly disturbing violent content.

As I am sure you know, the titular Hunger Games are a brutal arena-style fight to the death featuring children. Each district has to submit a boy and a girl from ages 12-18 to compete, or risk the Capitol's wrath on their District. While this plot point makes for dramatic plot progression and emotional investment, it also adds a sick and twisted element to the story. Even though Katniss stepped in for her sister Primrose, there are still several other Tributes that end up in the arena whom we watch die.

I would like to point out that the violence in the film has been tamed MUCH more from that featured in Collins novel. The book was very graphic and descriptive to show the horrific nature of the games, and it was abundantly clear the stance that Collins took on such things. Unfortunately, in a phenomenon like "The Hunger Games" the majority of the audience is tween and teen, obviously requiring a PG-13 rating at the most severe. Where as the books would linger on some of the killings to emphasize the horror, the film never focuses completely on the violence, instead giving us action packed glimpses and quick blood splatters. The characters we are allowed to spend time with are given emotional death scenes, but there are many Tributes that fall in the bloodbath at the beginning of the games without so much as an afterthought.

My thought is this... would "The Hunger Games" have been the same phenomenon if the plot had been void of brutality involving children? Part of me wants to believe that it could have, yet violence is what sells in America. The softening of the violence certainly makes it more acceptable on screen, yet in a sense that is what is creating the problem. I read several reports of foreign film ratings boards requiring re-cuts from director Gary Ross before the film would be allowed to be shown in theaters. Most foreign countries view violence as an incredibly harsh thing to show on screen and generally reflect that in their film rating standards while America tends to push the envelope in terms of harshness. Ironically, I found the handling of such heavy material in "The Hunger Games" to be very tasteful by American standards. The question is this - By making violence more "palatable" are we instead desensitizing our youth? One might argue that by presenting violence in its true light we might be more sensitive to brutality in pop culture.

I just wonder why stories like "The Hunger Games" have become such a huge craze among young readers and audiences. I simply want us to just think a bit about WHY we are attracted to stories like "The Hunger Games." Have we become so calloused that we as viewers are becoming like the Capitol spectators within the story? Or do we recognize the gravity of the situation and become emotionally tied to someone like Katniss Everdeen, the girl on fire?

Food for thought...

I eagerly await the next entry in Ross' film series and recommend "The Hunger Games" with reservations.
The REAL Bowman
(revised 3/26/12)

John Carter - Movie Review

John Carter
rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action
Directed by Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, Wall-E)

Filmmaking: ★★★★☆

Moral Rating: ★★★★☆


In the world of science fiction there is rarely such thing as an original idea. Even Avatar, Star Wars and Star Trek are heavily influenced by pop sci-fi culture from decades before their conception. This is why films such as Christopher Nolan's Inception are so highly regarded in cinema, because it is truly something that has never been seen before. So what exactly were James Cameron, George Lucas and their contemporaries drawing from in the creation of their elaborate universes set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"? The answer for many of these directors is Edgar Rice Burrough's "Barsoom" series of pulp science-fiction novels. While these may seem rather cheesy to us today, these novels have helped to shape the imagination of many a film pioneer.


Disney's "John Carter" is based off of the first book in Burrough's series, "A Princess of Mars" (which incidentally was written exactly 100 years ago in 1912). The story begins with Civil War veteran John Carter as he hunts for a hidden cave of gold in the Arizona mountains. During a run in with Apache Indians he is accidentally transported to Mars, or "Barsoom" as the natives call it, when he comes across mysterious otherworldly technology in this cave. While on Barsoom he is captured by the indigenous alien species called Tharks and due to the gravitational difference, discovers his incredible advantage in running, jumping and overall strength- quickly gaining respect from their leader Tars Tarkas. When the Tharks capture the rogue princess Dejah Thoris during a battle, Carter becomes sucked into the conflict between Dejah's city of Helium and the ravaging machine city of Zodanga, led by the powerful Tardos Mos, who intends to marry Dejah and take over all of Barsoom. The only hope for Barsoom lies in the aid of John Carter, who joins with the princess's cause and unifies the Tharks and Helium to stand against the forces of Zodanga.


As confusing as this story might seem, it is actually surprisingly easy to follow on screen thanks to director Andrew Stanton's impeccable directing. He balances story and character development very well, telling the audience no more than we need to know at a given time, and allowing us to learn the characters and situations as we go. The plot of "John Carter" is indeed a beast to handle! While the story itself isn't anything new, it always adds an added dimension when you have names of people and places that tend to bleed together in their ridiculousness. Despite chuckle-worthy names, the actors behind these characters deserve recognition. Taylor Kitsch (from Friday Night Lights fame) does a fine job as titular John Carter, and Lynn Collins, while a bit forced at times, is a likable Princess Dejah. The role I thought really stood out was Willem Dafoe as Thark leader Tars Tarkas. It truly takes good acting to bring an animated character to life, and I found myself laughing out loud at things Tarkas said, and actually ENJOYING the presence of an animated character in a live action film for once. (*cough* unlike Jar Jar Binks *cough*)


The animation is one aspect of John Carter that lacked a bit. While locations and machines were incredible (Zodanga seemed like something out of a Miyazaki movie) the character animation was a bit, shall we say, cartoony? Granted, much of this work came from Pixar. HOWEVER, as I pointed out above, this really didn't matter as much due to the solid acting jobs of Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church and Samantha Morton. If character graphics detracted at all from my enjoyment of the film, then the action sequences more than made up for it. Scenes like the arena battle with a white ape and a speeder chase through the city of Zodanga especially stand out. I didn't see the film in 3D but I imagine that these scenes would have been enhanced by added depth.


The reason that I didn't give John Carter a 5 out of 5 stars rating is due to a weak script. I felt that Stanton and the actors were especially up to the task at hand, and indeed the film was a blast to watch, BUT the script felt stale and old-fashioned most of the time. Dialogue was a bit forced, wording was very "1912" and in the end unrelatable to a contemporary audience. This is the issue that many people have with "John Carter" as a movie anyway. How can you take such a dated story and make it a hit with a contemporary audence? On one hand you want to stay true to the story, but on the other hand let the dialogue flow like it would in a more modern setting.

Other highlights: Michael Giacchino's score shines in this film, as it did in "The Incredibles" and "UP". The  comedic presence of the dog-like creature called Woola certainly stole the show in many scenes. I laughed out loud at the hilarious and cute animal that takes a liking to John Carter when he is in the Thark camp.

In conclusion, "John Carter" is a fun blockbuster action flick. While not perfect, it is a wonderfully executed adaptation of a dated sci-fi novel. Even though the film faltered at the box office, I am crossing my fingers for a sequel or two from Andrew Stanton.
Let's help Disney out with this one! Go see "John Carter"!

Signing out, The REAL Bowman

The Artist: Movie Review

The Artist
rated PG-13 for a disturbing image and a crude gesture
Starring Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo

Filmmaking: ★★★★★

Moral Rating: ★★★★★


I find it incredibly fitting, yet ironic, that a silent film has everyone talking. Indeed, director Michel Hazanvicius's stunning silent film is more gripping and moving than the majority of modern films showing at your local theater. The Artist has already won Golden Globe awards for Best Motion Picture, Best Actor and Best Original Score and the Director's Guild award for Best Director. The Artist is basically on track to sweep the Academy Awards this Spring, and is deserving of its nominations.


Set in the 1920's during the height of silent films, The Artist tells the tale of Hollywood star George Valentin (played superbly by the instantly likable Jean Dujardin). As "talkies" begin to replace silent films, Valentin finds himself replaced by a new set of faces, including the stunning Peppy Miller (portrayed by the ever lovely Bérénice Bejo), a young actress whose start in the film industry was due to Valentin himself. As his career, marriage and happiness crumbles away, Peppy attempts to reach out to help the struggling actor. Valentin fights his own pride all throughout these struggles, ultimately realizing that he must speak out if he is to keep those he cares about. 


As a silent film, The Artist delivers its emotional impact through the actors expressions and gestures rather than spoken dialogue. Combined with an unforgettable score from composer Ludovic Bource, The Artist manages to communicate its heart, its humor and its emotion far more effectively than a traditional "minimalist"style film. Where as a modern motion picture can be somewhat weighty because of the subtleties of acting and the monotonous quality of the music, The Artist channels an era of charming cinema and as a result is spellbinding. I found that I literally could not take my eyes off of the screen because the actors were so charming, the music so moving and the cinematography so riveting. I found that the relationship between lack of dialogue in the film and the silence of George Valentin were inexplicably tied. The story couldn't truly be told in as moving a way if dialogue were used. Instead we find ourselves linked to Valentin as an audience, able to sympathize with his frustrations.


In conclusion, The Artist is perhaps the best movie of 2011 and SHOULD win the Academy Award that recognizes it as such. This film is as much an ode to Hollywood as Martin Scorcese's Hugo, which is also nominated for Best Picture, although far more magical. With such a moving story, such incredible acting on the parts of Dujardin and Bejo and an incredible medium, The Artist is not to be missed. 


Signing out, 
The REAL Bowman

Take Shelter - Movie Review

Take Shelter

Rated R for some language

Filmmaking: ★★★★★

Moral Rating: ★★★☆☆

While I enjoy a good blockbuster film as much as any average viewer, independent films are what really interest me in the entertainment world. Generally deeper and more poignant films, independent films are required by lack of budget to rely on acting and story-telling for success. In "Take Shelter", a surprise hit from the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, Michael Shannon delivers a stunning performance as a mentally tortured construction worker named Curtis. Shannon has recently appeared on the celebrity radar with his terrific supporting role in "Revolutionary Road" and his upcoming appearance as General Zod in "Man of Steel" - the Zach Snyder directed Superman reboot.

In "Take Shelter", Curtis and his wife Sam live a simple life in an unspecified rural American town raising their deaf daughter Hannah and trying to make the most out their circumstances and surroundings. Things begin to change when Curtis starts having intense dreams of an oncoming apocalyptic storm. As the dreams become more frequent and more realistic, Curtis' behavior towards his family and coworkers rapidly changes. As Curtis tries to sort through these freakish visions he begins to build a storm shelter in his back yard in preparation. The catch is, he isn't sure that it is actually coming or not. Tensions mount as Sam, portrayed by 2011's hottest new actress Jessica Chastain (also seen in The Tree of Life and The Help), begins to doubt her husband's motives. The audience discovers that Curtis's family has a history of mental illness, so we are always uncertain of the validity of these dreams. I cannot reveal too much more without giving away the plot, but "Take Shelter" slowly builds until an incredibly emotional and intense climax.

Without a doubt, Michael Shannon is the star of this show. Under the direction of Jeff Nichols ("Shotgun Stories") Shannon builds a sense of paranoia in a very real way. Upon viewing "Take Shelter" I could see why he is quickly becoming a hot commodity in Hollywood. Shannon often says more in scenes without dialogue than those containing it. As a character who is trying desperately to protect his family, we see the turmoil in Curtis' eyes as he battles his own mind. The struggle is rooted in the question 'Do I protect my family from an apocalyptic storm that I believe is coming, or from myself?' I found myself switching sides quite often throughout the film, thanks to Shannon's incredible performance. The dreams, horrific in their loud sound editing, shocking violence and darkness, are effective at shaking up the audience in addition to Curtis. And indeed, we can see that something is amiss by the intensity of these visions!

Another shout out belongs to the score composer David Wingo. Cleverly utilizing minimalist strings and percussion, he often creates the effect of wind chimes in his score. Never loud or prominent, the score is just active enough to get under your skin. Subtle enough that you don't notice its presence, perhaps to give us that constant sense of dread that Curtis experiences in the film. While it reminded me at times of James Newton Howard's score to "Signs", Wingo is a fresh face in the movie music world and a good match for the thematic material of "Take Shelter".

In conclusion, you'll notice that I did not reveal many plot points. And this is something important to note! If you are looking for a thought-provoking drama/thriller, then "Take Shelter" is for you - but it is best to enter the theater knowing nothing more than what I've told you. Much of the tension and effectiveness of this film is in the audience's own doubts and perceptions. While not for children (there are a handful of f-words towards the middle of the film) I DO recommend "Take Shelter" for older audiences. Refreshing in a market awash with cinematic cliches, Michael Shannon's award-worthy performance in "Take Shelter" is not to be missed!

Signing out,
The REAL Bowman

The Muppets - Movie Review

The Muppets
Rated PG for mild rude humor
Filmmaking: ★★★★★
Moral Rating: ★★★★★


Thank you Walt Disney Company for getting it right!


When I first heard that Disney was planning a so-called 'reboot' of their lagging Muppets property, I was a bit skeptical. After all, the man who had pitched the idea to the studio and was attached to star was not exactly family friendly. Jason Segel, as likeable an actor as he is, comes from the Judd Apatow raunch-comedy troupe, has written and starred in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and is a current favorite character on tv's "How I Met Your Mother" - which is also not exactly for the kids. I can happily tell you however that Segel's take on "The Muppets" is far from offensive. The film reintroduces The Muppets to a 21st century audience, yet never compromises the character and humor that the long-lived franchise is known for.


In "The Muppets" we are introduced from the very beginning to Gary (Jason Segel) and his brother Walter, a die-hard Muppets fan. We are never given the reason or opportunity to question how or why a puppet and human are brothers, but are asked to simply accept it in the whimsical spirit of The Muppets. Even though Walter is a new character, he is a welcome addition to the franchise and is according to Segel "the crazy, crazy, Muppet fan who grew up with them and they meant so much to him." (screenrant.com) Walter gets the chance of a lifetime when Gary takes him and his girlfriend of 10 years Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles. While Gary intends for the trip to be a getaway and Mary hopes it will lead to a proposal, Walter is simply set on seeing the historic Muppet Studios. Once in LA Walter overhears a plot by the film's villain, Tex Richman (played perfectly by Chris Cooper), to raze the Muppet Studios once their contract expires, giving him access to an oil reserve beneath the property. The only way that this plan can be stopped is for the Muppets to reunite and put on a fundraiser show to raise the 10 millions dollars necessary to renew their contract and save The Muppet Theater.

Walter and Gary share a moment...

While certainly not an original story idea, "The Muppets" pulls off this plot better than any other film I've seen. The entire time I was watching, I was reminded of a much-lesser Disney movie from 2002 based on their "Country Bears" Disney World attraction. Where that film floundered in its own stupidity, Segel's script is witty, fun, and constantly paying homage to "The Muppet Show" and the early years of these characters. Old time fans will be touched by Kermit's song "Pictures in my Head" as he reminisces over the old days, or the presence of "The Rainbow Connection", a classic Muppets musical number. The new songs here start off a bit campy (the audience wasn't sure what to do when Jason Segel burst into song within the first 5 minutes) but as the film progresses, so does the quality of the songs. Bret McKenzie (of Flight of the Conchords fame) did an excellent job writing songs that fit the style of The Muppets. (Check out my personal favorite "Man or Muppet" on iTunes)

While the plot and songs are fine, what audiences truly care to see is the return of their much-loved characters! We discover that Kermit and Miss Piggy have been separated when we first see them, so much of the film is devoted to their (interspecies) relationship. Fozzie Bear and Gonzo fans never fear though, for we see ALL of our favorites in "The Muppets"! While I would have preferred to see more of Beaker, Rizzo the Rat and The Swedish Chef, each character has a role in the fundraiser show. In a wise move, the human characters never overshadow the Muppet characters, with both Gary and Mary moving into supporting roles once our heroes are re-established on screen. Granted, there is something amusing about seeing Jason Segel carry on an earnest conversation with puppets as if they are human. This childlike attitude seems to more than qualify Segel for the job as producer, writer and actor. As a long-time fan of "The Muppets" he treats them fairly, giving the characters the respect they deserve- never having to "reinvent" them. 


On a slightly random note, while you are viewing "The Muppets" keep your eyes open for the many, many celebrity cameos. Some are more prominent (such as Jack Black in a hilarious supporting role) and others are blink-and-you-miss-em fast (Mickey Rooney, Sarah Silverman, Neil Patrick Harris, Whoopi Goldberg, John Krasinski, Selena Gomez among others). Back in the days of "The Muppet Show" the guest celebrities were always a delight, and this proves true today. 


In conclusion, "The Muppets" is a surprise hit at the cinema this Thanksgiving. Jason Segel has created a hilarious, heartwarming film is already receiving rave reviews from critics and movie-goers alike. I commented to my friend as I left the theater that I couldn't remember the last time I had been to a movie that I enjoyed so much where kids made up the majority of the audience. This is indeed one of the great things about "The Muppets" - it is good, clean fun for all ages. Truly funny, touching and definitely worthy of repeat viewings, this movie is a must see. 


Signing out,
The REAL Bowman


Side Note: "The Muppets" had one of the most brilliant ad campaigns that I have seen in a long time, spoofing other major film events of 2011 such as "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", "Breaking Dawn" and "Green Lantern". Check out the preview below....