Sometime during the evening, the conversation turned to movies.

In my experiences with modern Christianity, there are two main schools of thought on movies and media. The first is that almost every secular media item has at least some sprinkling of “objectionable elements”, which, when counted, contribute to the measurement of whether a Good Christian ought not to see or consume it. (This brings up other issues with which I will deal later). “Whoever is not with me is against me,” (Luke 11:23) is sometimes quoted, but I’m not sure if the context bears applying it here. Especially since Luke 9:49-50, where Jesus is telling his followers not to stop unofficial helpers from doing His work, saying “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you,” seems like a better fit to me.

The second is one by which I have more recently been stirred, and plays off the idea that all truth is God’s truth. Media communicates. Movies tell stories of life, death, redemption, love, loss, rebuilding. The characters aren’t perfect. Most of the characters in God’s story weren’t perfect, either. But He used their lives to illustrate parts of His character and plan. You can find aspects and illustrations of the Gospel in just about anything.

I almost posed the question to Jon tonight, but decided to write about it instead: how does one communicate that second, more inclusive idea to someone who is committed to the first, exclusive one (as I was brought up to believe)?

Feel free to discuss in the comments.

At first glimpse, this movie looks like an insensitive comedy about people whom society would brand Losers. People who have no lives, no friends, no personality, and don’t care enough about themselves to change and make their future matter.

But after you watch it for a while, you realize that, well, it is a comedy about Losers. And the awful people who dismiss them by pretending they’re invisible. It’s okay that it’s a comedy, because you can laugh at Napoleon while still rooting for him.

We follow Napoleon’s life over several days. We meet Pedro, his new (and only) friend, Deb, the equally-outcast girl who tries to get close to him, and his uncle who lives for the memories of his failed college football career. The snotty cheerleaders who would really like to pretend Napoleon and company don’t exist, but are forced to acknowledge them when Pedro runs for school president. Napoleon’s adult older brother who chats online all day, and their grandmother who takes care of them.

I think Napoleon resonated with me mostly because he was me at that age. I was the shy social outcast who didn’t care what they thought anyway, and went off to do things by myself.

In the end, Napoleon gains a few friends. With his help, his friends make something of themselves, but Napoleon is still the same gangly, child-like outcast. He hasn’t gained any self-confidence, but strangely, that’s okay.

I do recommend it. I’ll probably buy it on DVD … or put it on my Amazon Wish List. Maybe Jennifer will like it, too.

“You still owe me the whole eight bucks, though,” I told Tim. He wasn’t impressed.

The movie itself was rather impressive, fully deserving of its Oscar nomination for Art Direction, if not for Original Score. There was a Tim-Burton-esque vibe to it’s artistic style and pacing. And it’s not a run-of-the-mill Jim Carrey movie, either; while he has an important part, the film isn’t just another excuse to see him twist himself around and leer at the camera (though he has his moments).

The three mysteriously orphaned Baudelaire children are taken to live with their ‘distant relative’, the eccentric Count Olaf. And through a series of unfortunate events, they are taken from one home to another, never quite finding the perfect, loving, guardian they are longing for.

I was delighted by the movie’s sense of whimsy and abstract humor, in much the same way as I enjoyed Big Fish and Edward Scissorhands. The Unfortunate Events are indeed unpleasant, but none of them got really unnerving until near the end of the movie … which I won’t spoil for you). Mine had to be coerced, but if you happen to have willing accomplices, stay through the credits for the clever animated sequences and unique music not heard anywhere else in the film.

Update: Once you see the movie, you’ll understand The Most Incredibly Brilliant Blog in the World. Our beloved Count Olaf powers Blogger. Who knew?

It does nothing but turn TVs off. Seriously, that’s all it does, is just universally, completely, truly attempts to shut down just about every TV around (and it’s rarely unsuccessful).

Besides, it might help prevent more of The Machines from achieving self-awareness and freaking out. After all, Ah-nold is busy, so he can’t go back to save us again.

If all goes according to plan, it will be the first in what should rightly be called a septilogy, but isn’t.

I can’t wait.

A Stargate team gets stranded in the ancient, abandoned city of Atlantis — which turns out to be located somewhere in the Pegasus galaxy. Unable to return to earth, their survival requires that they explore that galaxy’s Stargate network, discovering new cultures and civilizations — and a deadly new enemy.

I think Stargate: Atlantis is the new Star Trek … especially since Trek has become more and more anemic (excepting season 3 of Enterprise, for the most part). Exploration, adventure, drama … but in the more accessible context of the US Air Force, not the utopian Federation of Star Trek.