A Box of Faith - Christian Film Done Well

 

Beautiful, kindly film, a really lovely piece, A Box of Faith stands out. 

A lot of well-meaning Christian film-makers give it their best shot, but turn out weak when it comes to story. Ham-fisted miracles, trite dialogue, predictable plots and wooden acting tends to be more common than not. Don't get me wrong there are some indie Christian film-makers that are doing some remarkable work, but the genre is about half a century behind modern film-making's level of sophistication. 

This movie isn't sophisticated. It's good! What makes it a standout piece is the beauty of the story. It made me cry. This story proves that writing can carry a film that doesn't have a big budget. The actors aren't Meryl Streep or Tom Hanks, but they do a good job of portraying real people. 

The story follows a teenage girl and her father through the kind of hopeless hard time that we all pray we never have to go through. The prayers are simple and heartfelt and not stilted. The film is not preachy, but genuine. Dior's father, Tim, is arrested for a crime he didn't commit and Dior dodges a social worker in order to stay out of foster care. The girl manages to survive out on her own. Her bag is stolen. She lives by day in a park and sleeps in her dad's storage unit.

You really root for this kid as she hangs on hoping for some kind of miracle. The movie ends on a positive note as all my favorite movies do. Bill Wetherill who plays the girl's father Tim is wonderful. He's a big sweetheart of a guy and you really feel for him. Dior is played by Savannah D. McMahon is perfect as a teenage girl living by her wits on her own. Julie Van Lith is terrific as the social worker charged with Dior's case.

Right now, the film is on Amazon Prime and possibly some other faith friendly streaming services. It's a wonderful movie for a quiet Sabbath afternoon. This one gets three pineapples for a happy ending, for reminding me of Swiss Family Robinson and Castaway type survival stories and for the clever use of the Box of Faith which ties the story together so cleverly.

© 2022 by Tom King

Editing Out the Best Bits - Abridging Classic Children's Stories

Why do Children's Book Editors Talk Down to Modern Children?

I bought my grandson an illustrated edition of Ruyard Kipling's brilliant story, "The Elephant's Child," intending to record myself reading this exquisitely told tale from Kipling's "Just So Stories." As I read through the lovely illustrated book, something seemed off, as though something were missing from the story I enjoyed hearing as a child.

Off to the Internet I went and pulled up a copy of the story from a website that collected literature from the past, intact and without meddling by modern critics and editors who feel like Kipling just didn't understand modern sensibilities.  To my horror, I discovered that the wonderful rhythm of the story, which you may remember was almost a song in its use of rhythm and repetition was missing much of what I loved about the story. Not only were some of the best, most mysterious bits missing but the rhythm and repetition - two key crucial ingredients of excellent storytelling for children, as every great storyteller knows - were missing. 

My grandpa knew about rhythm and repetition. He used to tell us kids simple stories of his own childhood. They varied very little as he told them over and over. The words had been honed over the years to a fine edge, like music that held us enthralled. Then he would play an old tune on his harmonica and then magically plucked another story out of the air. Perhaps it would be "Old Bob and the Skunk" or "Old Bob and the Kittens" "Or Dixie the Horse Arrives on the Train."  Then a chorus of "Polly Wolly Doodle" or "We'll Be Jolly Friends." His stories were simple and lovely and would have made Mr. Rogers proud.

Kipling stories are like that. In the Elephant's child, Kipling does not talk down to children. He challenges them, periodically launching spectacular phrases like "the great grey green greasy Limpopo River all set about with fever trees." The editor of the book version I bought seems to have decided that children today are too stupid to understand about fever trees, thereby missing the point entirely.

Of course, the children hearing this story the first time won't know about fever trees. They are likely to interrupt the story to ask "What are fever trees." The wise story-teller, knowing that the whole point of this story is to show that children should ask questions even at some risk that more may happen than is expected, will answer. "Oh, best beloved, the fever tree is a kind of African tree which attracts mosquitoes which bite people and cause malaria which gives the people infected a fever. That's why people in Africa call them "fever" trees. Also best beloved, these trees like to grow along the banks of rivers."

The child learns not only from the story, but also the story-teller that asking questions is an acceptable thing, despite the relatives that tell them they should shut up and spank them for their "curtiosity."

Kipling also mangles words on purpose for fun. Some children, hearing the tale for the first time, may find the words funny, but they will soon come to recognize that the Elephant's Child, in using words like "'satiable curtiosity" is like them, trying out language and learning new words and that even if they mispronounce a word it is not the end of the world.

One wonders whether the Children's Book Editor at Frances Lincoln Children's Books who abridged "The Elephant's Child," does a great disservice to children by removing phrases like "all set about with fever trees" and "One fine morning in the middle of the Precession of the Equinoxes". Does the editor think children will not understand such things or is the editor like Aunt Hippopotamus and Uncle Baboon and could not understand such things himself. Or is he afraid the child might ask, "What is a Precession of the Equinoxes?"

Many grownups have a complete horror of being asked a question by a child that they cannot answer and therefore discourage any difficult questions from children and sometimes try to prohibit questions altogether because doing so might cause them to think and thinking has given them a headache ever since their days in college when they were taught not to think thoughts not approved of by their professors.

My solution to the problem is to obtain the original version of "The Elephant's Child" and read that into a microphone and render the digital audio onto a CD, thereby creating an audiobook of the unabridged story. My grandson Eli can follow along with the pictures (I'll put a bell in the recording to indicate time to turn the page). The words however, will be Kiplings own, intact and complete.

I am thinking that I will get Eli to provide me some recordings of his own voice saying cute things like "O' wisest of grandfathers. Can you tell me how the elephant got its trunk?"  I may interject questions like "What, o' wisest of grandfathers, is a fever tree?" That would be fun.

I would also include a preface of my own explaining that this is the unabridged story because Grandfather believes children are clever enough to figure out things for themselves, by asking wise grownups questions that satisfy their 'satiable curtiosity.

© 2021 by Tom King

 

 

Ginny Weasley – J.K. Rowlings’ Most Daring Character

 

Author’s Note: Many of my Christian friends find Rowlings’ Harry Potter series objectionable because it seems to glorify witchcraft. The use of magic in the series is at least the conjuring style with magic words and formulas rather than the summoning demons and dark forces style of magic. At least the rules of her magic world divide the use of magic by good and evil, right and wrong. Rowling, based on her own comments in various interviews, tries to cast her books as politically correct, but when she is honest about it, she gets in trouble with the cancel culture. Rowling says this book is not a Christian allegory and it is not set in the sort of magical fantasy allegorical worlds that openly Christian authors like JRR Tolkien, John Bunyan, George McDonald and CS Lewis built. But it’s hard to miss that Rowlings’ Harry turns out in the end to be a Messiah figure. Both he and Dumbledore willingly lay down their lives for others. Like John the Baptist, Dumbledore doesn’t come back. Like Jesus, however, Harry does. I think that in tackling the messiah theme, Rowlings could not help herself incorporating Christian themes. Even though not an exact allegory, the series definitely held ancient themes common to Christian literature. The messiah theme repeats itself in literature all down the ages from The Garden of Eden to Christ, to King Arthur to Aslan and Frodo. It echoes in our stories and songs down through the age, because, I believe, it is true. This article came from a discussion by disgruntled Harry Potter fans complaining because Harry didn’t wind up with Hermione. I think Rowlings was exactly right and revealed a great deal of wisdom. Her recent troubles with cancel culture have shown her to be made of sterner stuff than the left thought she was. I felt like I should defend her choice from wrong-headed critics.

J.K. Rowlings, author of the wildly successful Harry Potter series, drew her characters well. Her ability to draw distinct and likeable characters was responsible for most of the seven volume series’ success.  The character that is often cited as the least-liked of all the characters is Harry’s ultimate love interest, his best friend Ron Weasley’s kid sister, Ginny.  I utterly disagree.

Ginny was a wonderful girl. She had her mother's fierce devotion to family and her father's sense of wonder. She was devoted to Harry and wound up being pretty amazing in her own right. Fans of the series, especially female fans often criticize Rowlings for not getting Harry and Hermione together as a couple. Instead they had that rare and improbable male-female friendship that many less insightful readers believe is simply impossible.

Rowlings, however was smarter than that. She could clearly see that  Harry and Hermione would never have worked – they were too much like brother and sister. Heroes in stories need an ally like that, and a sister can be a powerful ally. But a sister is not a suitable mate. Harry and Hermione were both very powerful characters and they needed soul mates who were strong enough to be themselves, without needing to contend with them for dominance. Ginny adored Harry and had a very healthy ego of her own and had few doubts about herself or about Harry for that matter. The same was true with Ron toward Hermione. She always amazed him and he always trusted in her gifts even when she, herself, didn't.  I think Ron and Ginny got that from their father. Mrs. Weasley was always something of an overwhelming character and he was content to let her be so.

Remember that Ron ran away from Harry and Hermione for a time during their hunt for the horcruxes. He had to. It was in a way, too much having to live with the two of them running along at full power. As friends Harry and Hermione could work together and stand the heat, but as mates, I think the addition of a sexual component would have sent them both up in flames the way high-powered actor or politician couples tend to flame out and wind up divorced or worse.

Ginny and Ron got the best characteristics from their parents - stability, devotion and enough fire from their mother to hold their own in Harry and Hermione's considerable shadows. From their father they got that flexibility, good humor and common sense.  It allowed them to provide their more fiery mates a stable rock from which they could spring to even greater heights.

Look at all the people out there who achieve the kind of "greatness" Olivander predicted for Harry. The very best of them have friends like Ron and mates like Ginny.

Margaret Thatcher had Denis
Ronald Reagan had Nancy
Queen Elizabeth had Prince Philip
George W. Bush had Laura
George H.W. Bush had Barbara
JFK had Jackie
Dwight Eisenhower had Mamie
FDR had Eleanor
Harry had Bess
Abe Lincoln had Mary with all her flaws
George Washington had Martha

A recent example of a flawed pairing of two alpha personalities would be Bill and Hillary Clinton. Both were powerful in their own right and as such, they very publicly went up in flames during his administration. Bill still has trouble letting Hillary take center stage as she did when he was president. In her most recent political activities, Bill has hovered like a grim ghost in the background, his past history casting a poisonous cloud over her aspirations.

I think J.K. Rowlings got the pairings exactly right in the Harry Potter saga. Not many authors are brave enough to suggest that that type of relationships between a man and women may be idea! Harry was close friends with Hermione and mate to Ginny and the distinction between those relationships became ever more clear as the series went on. Many people want to believe that two powerful alpha type people can make it together, but the odds are always against them and their relationship will never be quite secure. Like it or not, Harry and Ginny were made for each other and Hermione and Ron were too. From the moment she told him he had dirt on his nose that first day they met on the train to Hogwarts, it was always inevitable they would wind up together. Ron was an amazing young man from the first and his character grew right along. But Hermione's confidence and self-assurance helped to bolster Ron's own confidence. Ron was always confident in Hermione and realized what a treasure she was. Like his father, Ron was devoted to her and quite content to live in the powerful presence of "the brightest witch of her day" without burning up or needing to challenge her position.

That's why J.K. Rowlings sold so many books. She wrote truth, however politically incorrect it might be. People are starved for truth. Some of the things J.K. says outside of the books might be suspect or an attempt to cull favor with the politically correct, but within the books, she got it dead to rights.

A lot of Potter fans complain that Ginny and Harry “suck” as a couple.

Balderdash! They only suck if you're looking for a soap opera and not a happy marriage. They only suck if well-adjusted, happy couples bore you to tears.

It's amazing to me how girls always get irate over the jock or the BMOC (big man on campus) who overlooks the shy, unassuming girl in favor of some tempestuous floozy who only makes his life miserable when the shy girl would have been a devoted supportive companion and helpmate. Then they turn around and complain if there aren't enough fireworks between the couple to pique their prurient interest.

I got news for you, tempestuous relationships tend to wind up in divorce a few years after the movie's happy ending. Having wild passionate sex, contrary to the romantic poets, doesn't fix all that’s wrong with a  bad relationship. It blows it up! Fiery relationships are all well and good for soap operas and movies of the week, but they suck as a foundation for a happy marriage.

JK gave us not one, but two wonderful relationships - Harry and the devoted Ginny and Hermione and the devoted Ron instead of some cliche'd romantic triangle (although we did get a bit of that with Ron on the horcrux hunt even if it was all in Ron's imagination.

Harry Potter was about good vs. evil. It was about making the right choice even if it didn't seem like it was in your best interests. It was about relying on your friends and family instead of trying to go it alone. It was about doing the right thing. Look at the quintessential romantic triangle - Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot. Guinevere was too much of a power in her own right. Arthur was competition. Lancelot was powerful, but he never challenged her for right of place. It cost Arthur his kingdom and almost cost his legacy.

I think Harry came out far better than Arthur did in choosing Ginny. And the Ginny in the books was far more fleshed out than in the movie, although Bonnie Wright's subtle performance in the films revealed all you might want to know about Ginny's character - starting from that first contact in the train station. Bonnie really played Harry's mate to the hilt, even when Harry barely realized she was there.

I hate soap opera - stupid people who shouldn't be together torturing each other. Where is there anything to be gleaned from that besides the whole post-modernist "Life is meaningless and then you die" nonsense?

Why would you want to screw up a heroic tale like the Harry Potter series that way other than because you either have a perverse need to see people make themselves miserable so you don't feel so bad about your own misery or because you have a literary axe to grind and want to show how smart you are and "above all that schmaltzy happy ending stuff".

That's why so many English majors wind up bitter cranky old schoolmarms and never contribute anything meaningful in the way of literature. I'd rather learn from great authors than set myself up as their judge and jury. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't even teach become critics.

As River Tam described such persons in Firefly, "Sad little king of a sad little hill."

Many Potter fans complain that Ginny is too “bland”.  I think her character is subtle and subtle is not bland. You want an exciting couple, there's always Voldemort and Bellatrix.

Again, it amazes me that people will complain a couple is bland and get royally furious when the "jock" spurns the "plain" girl for the more exciting one in real life. Maybe you have to be female to understand what these critics are talking about. For me, Ginny was a wonderful character, book and movie. She wasn't flashy or exotically beautiful, but for someone like Harry who was risking his life almost daily, fighting evil wizards and witches, giving up his very life to save others.......Ginny would have been a fresh, uncomplicated breath of fresh air and devoted companion.

You got a glimpse of the stuff Ginny was made of in the final battle, in the kiss she initiated in the room of requirement, in her steadfast devotion to Harry. Harry needed that. Hermione and Harry would have gone up in flames.

In the hero quest, the hero's mate gives him (or her) one of two things - a happily ever after or a tragic ending. Harry and Ginny were right together as were Hermione and Ron; that is, if you wanted them to have that happily ever after.

 

Rowlings was brilliant in putting them together the way she did. And with Harry and Hermione, she perfectly captured that fascinating and rare relationship, a male-female true friendship without sex. Nature provides us with pheremonal cues when two people are not genetically compatible. When you're together you feel like siblings. Anything else just seems wrong.

I've had relationships with women that were like that. My wife has a long-standing relationship with a guy from school that's like that. They even tried dating once and it just didn't feel right to either of them. They're great friends and all, but that's all.

I'm so glad J.K. placed that element in the Potter novels and didn't go for the whole "men and women can never be just friends" malarkey. Remember the scene in the tent where they danced together. It showed how their relationship worked and did so brilliantly. There weren't any sexual overtones in it. It looked like friends comforting one another.

Everything isn't about sex. Fully mature people understand that. Hormonally charged teenagers so seldom do. Both Hermione and Harry matured at a surprisingly young age. Remember how Hermione was always encouraging Harry in his relationships.

And did you catch the scene on the bridge where Hermione said, "At least you accomplished one thing tonight.......Cho couldn't keep her eyes off you." And if you keep your eyes on Ginny in that scene as she is walking along behind him, you'll see this tiny little flinch from Ginny when Hermione says it. She is already carrying a torch for Harry and Harry doesn't yet see it.

The romance between Harry and Ginny is one of my favorites in all of literature. It's not a bonfire, but the kindling of a warm hearth - the sort of fire that lasts a lifetime.

Hermione and Ron have a sparkier relationship, but mostly because Ron lacks the self-confidence to move forward with Hermione. Hermione is in love with Ron long before he has the courage to recognize that he is in love with her. Hermione was ready to close the deal with Ron early on. She loved Ron, not in spite of his flaws, but because of them. To me that's incredibly selfless and what love ought to be.

Ron was afraid to put himself forward with Hermione. It's not that Ron isn't brave; he just doesn't see how someone as brilliant as Hermione could possibly love someone as flawed as he sees himself being. After he becomes separated from Harry and Hermione and Dumbledore's light catcher leads him back, you see a new Ron, filled with a new sense of self-confidence - enough to push his way past Hermione's anger. From then on, they are pair-bonded for life and you can see it in everything they do. That time away was Ron's 40 days in the wilderness just as the time when Harry surrendered to Voldemort and was "killed" was Harry's. Once that job was done, Harry could allow Ginny fully into his life without fearing that being close to him would get her killed.

Rowlings did such a good job with those relationships. The books are very wise and the films captures that quite well. The Harry/Ginny naysayers inevitably make arguments for Harry and Hermione make arguments of the sort junior high school girls for putting together the big jock and the head cheerleader back in the hormone-fueled days of early adolescence. You don't hook up with your sister and Hermione was  always that to Harry. JK was dead on.

The fact that practically everyone wants more of Harry and the gang, is a testament to how brilliantly and truthfully Rowlings drew the characters. I may have to watch the movies again now. Rowlings has given us a wise and truly remarkable body of work that will likely stand the test of time and gets all the pineapples I have. An author that can hold the attention of children and adolescent through not just one thick volume, but seven knows her stuff, so y'all just shut up about Ginny being the wrong gal for Harry.

© 2021 by Tom King

The Railway Children

If I read a story to children, I want it to celebrate the goodness in people and I want it to have a happy ending. Elizabeth Nesbit's grand old story does all that. Some 21st century readers are kind of harsh in their criticism of these books. It's not layered with enough socialist principles, feminist ideals or criticism of all things corporations to suit them. The criticism is that the story is not "realistic".

With children's books, I will always allow a trip to fairyland idealism for the sake of the kids. Better they grow up on ideals than harsh realities in their bedtime stories. Let them learn the ideals first and when they are adults, they will have the ideals against which to judge the rightness of the harsh realities.

• It is good that Nesbit made her country-folk fallible and at the same time willing to admit their failings. 
• It's good that neighbors are shown being neighborly. Even Perks' pride is shown up for a flaw. 
• It's good that the "old gentleman" is a decent man. He serves to remind us that not every successful man is an evil capitalist with no heart. 

I wonder sometimes if part of the reason so many successful businessmen seem so hard-hearted is because we have been propagandized by a generation of literature that inevitably characterizes them as evil and hard-hearted. Perhaps they merely oblige us, given that we expect them to be so horrible and rotten. Wouldn't it be better to expect more rather than less to whom great wealth and responsibility has been given? The kindly capitalist may be a myth in this day and age, though having met a lot of them in my work in philanthropy, I doubt this caricature is entirely accurate.

The Railway Children is a classic
Three Pineapples!

Remember what we all learned from Joseph Campbell. Myth is the great teacher. Perhaps we should enlist our myth-telling powers to lift up and inspire rather than to tear down and vilify. Especially in children's stories, I wonder whether or not we shouldn't expect more of our leaders and our successful people instead of settling for the old saying, "With the rich and powerful, always a little patience." Maybe we should stop being shocked when they turn out to be kindly and go back to being shocked when they show themselves to be brigands.

Just a thought.

© 2017 by Tom