I would like to think of the Cavaliers as 13th century Scotland, and the Lakers as Longshanks. Cleveland is the underdog, and been beaten down for many years by the evil Longshanks (like the Lakers). And LeBron is like William Wallace, he has come to free Cleveland from the evil tyranny of king Kobe Longshanks. And Shaq is like Robert the Bruce. He has a past relationship with the evil empire (LA), but is now considering fighting for the good guys (Cleveland). May God add His blessing to His word.

This discussion reminds me of the hermeneutical issues that we are constantly facing even in our world of hollywood, internet, media, and blogs.. and more blogs. The analysis of content, authorial intent, and perception weigh in on us from all sides. I do find Chris’ review excellent. One that brings these hermeneutical elements into play and emphasizes the positive lessons to be learned even from a “secular” movie. These personal “lines” that shift in Chris’ life evidence his growth into being a “william wallace” of sorts. Being able to see the beauty of life even in an “R” rated film and applying that to your life shows in my estimation a healthy theology of culture.

Its ironic how Hollywood finds a way to profit immensely by portraying vividly the stuff of life that are fundamentally “real” and even SOMETIMES do a good job at pointing to the virtuous life.

I also appreciate Luke’s sharp mind in raising issues that sometimes go unnoticed or even ignored in our evaluation of culture to our detriment. Again in our hermeneutic of culture we also need that type of evaluation because it is a much needed perspective that challenges us to have a robust and wise discernment in our engagement of our cultures. Without that kind of discernment we may fall into the danger becoming too “worldly” and get sucked into the subtle “evils” that plague a fallen world.

And Go Lakers!!! In the Lakers case, there is no need for a fair hermeneutic. Life is unfair sometimes and it surely is black and white. Champions win and prospects dream. Beware of THE CLOSER!!

Funny, as I was watching the scene where Wallace gets beheaded, I thought of my old coworker. The English crowd in that scene only saw Wallace as the enemy, not someone fighting to defend his country. That’s why I thought of Jane. She will only see her England in one light – those that dare to condemn England are enemies indeed. I am that way about the L.A. Lakers, how can anyone hate them (though I know many do)? From my perspective, they are the greatest, and Kobe one of the greatest among basketball men.

And my point is? Well, I forgot. Maybe something about how black and white we see the world, and how our perspective usually reigns over all others. But anyway, good movie, and go Lakers!

Please no apologies. Your points are totally salient and completely relevant to this dialog. Yes, we concur, the “simplicity” which allows the film to do what it does, is certainly not reflective of the complexities of “real world politics”, but it’s a good character story.

As for the “lines” we draw in relation to screen stories: I have personally made a pretty radical shift in the last ten years – I used to be pretty heavy on the “battle for world-view”, which predictably centered on the moral corruption of the film and music industry (and of course with the moral indiscretions of Bill Clinton). Even with this shift of my personal lines, I still “catch your drift” (no book required) with regard to the issue of discernment, but if I lean toward Tarantino, have I gone too far (I’m pretty sure my wife thinks so at times)?

I’m sure you know by now how much I sincerely appreciate this dialog, along with the insights and viewpoints you share on this site. And as for being a distraction – get out of here with that crazy talk! This is a “thread” and a dialog, and thankfully you are the kind of person who is willing to mix things up a bit with your “pet issues.” No “clones” or “world-view cage matches” here!

Let’s keep it continuous!

C

That was really a side issue, and what I’m really trying to point out, however poorly, is how often Christians are not discerning when it comes to violence in movies. We’ll walk out of movies if there’s too much sex, but somehow glorified violence is rarely questioned.

As far as the “line” I mentioned: Saving Private Ryan… horribly violent movie trying to show the true cost of war. Kill Bill… horribly violent movie that is trying to capitalize on violence for its sheer entertainment value (though to be fair Tarantino sees that as itself an artistic expression). I’m not sure where the line is between the two, or where Braveheart falls, but I think we should think about it, and be discerning. I’d have to write a book to more clearly say what I mean, but hopefully you catch my drift. Not censorship, but discernment.

Regarding the problems associated with regime change that you refer to, trading one “tyrant (for) another tyrant:” I know you said your comments were an “aside”, but they’re just too relevant to the film and thought provoking to ignore.

You are right to say that in the pursuit of “freedom” people/countries justify and rationalize evil and tyranny, but I think its interesting to note how this film handles that issue. The issue in question, regime change, is uniquely embedded in Robert the Bruce and the trajectory of his development as a leader. Robert the Bruce could easily have fulfilled the axiom of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”, but despite the external pressures, personal weaknesses, and moral failure (betraying Wallace), he manages to avoid ultimate corruption and in the final scene of the film, he succeeds in vindicating a major theme of BraveHeart, “Good Leaders Lay Down Their Lives for the People They Lead.”

The political commentary of this film is not that nuanced when it comes to it’s message on the use of power and for that matter, the use of violence. In fact, I think you would agree that morally speaking, this film is very simplistic: “freedom is good and tyranny is bad” and “self-sacrifice good and self-preservation bad.” And as you noted, for BraveHeart, violence is portrayed as a necessary and justifiable response to political tyranny (I could see where this mentality is antithetical to pacifist convictions).

In light of the message of the film, the grizzly violence may have been graphic, but I didn’t see it as being gratuitous and I’m not sure that I understand where the “fine line” is that you refer to. This naturally seems to speak to the issue regarding “violence in the movies” as a whole, but the dangers I sense with that discussion is that it seems to be on the same slope as the Avatar “world-view” discussion.

I know you didn’t explicitly address some of these issues and I certainly don’t expect you to answer them, but I think the nature of film is really tricky when it comes to the things like: values, content, message, and censorship. Again, I know these aren’t your issue per se – I just saw them laying there and thought I’d pick’em up. I knew this series would be stimulating. btw is our numbering system backwards or is this a countdown?

FREEDOM and peace, C

As a pacifist (although a short-tempered pacifist), I always struggle with this film for the obvious reasons. It’s a powerful story of self-sacrifice and uncompromising fearlessness. Great flick and has been a favorite of mine. But it’s right on the line between “gritty-realism” that shows the horror of war, and glorifying violence in the name of ______. It really shows (in a non-ironic way) what nasty things we do to replace one tyrant with the “freedom” that usually ends up being just another tyrant. Even killing other Christians so we can have “our” tyrant in place! Really nothing to do with the points you brought up, but just some thoughts .