A Review of Alice in Wonderland

One would think that if you watch a Tim Burton/ Johnny Depp collaboration based upon a legendary Lewis Carroll novel, you would get a movie that is equal parts madcap hilarity, witty dialogue, and enterprising spontaneity all thrown in with more than a sprinkling of genius. After all, these three characters all share a certain zany similarity that should surely result in a very entertaining synergy. Sadly, this is not the case. My only reaction to this latest version of Alice in Wonderland is an entirely underwhelmed “meh”. Look, it is not a bad movie by any means; it is just that it is very average. Allow me to explain why.

The action in this movie has been moved forward by thirteen years. Alice is now almost 20 - her previous experience in Wonderland is explained as a confused dream that later turns out to be genuine. The 19 year old version of Alice is attending a garden party where a very unappealing member of the aristocracy proposes marriage. Fleeing him, and pursuing a overcoat adorned white rabbit, she kneels at the base of a tree and peers down an immense hole. Then she falls in. All according to “Carollian” plan so far, no complaints from me.

The fall is one of the more enjoyable parts of the film because special effects are now advanced enough to finally do justice to Carroll’s imagination. Alice lands in a small, round room where she has to shrink, grow and then shrink some more to fit through the door. On the other side of the door Alice runs into a crowd of wonderfully absurd figures who launch into a wonderfully absurd discussion of whether or not this is the “right Alice.” Everything so far is entirely worthy of Carroll’s original story.

Unfortunately, that’s where it ends. Cue end of Alice in Wonderland, and cue beginning of Alice in Middle Earth. The plot from here on is standard Tolkien fantasy fare. It involves a land overtaken by the darkness of a wicked tyrant, a monster (the Jabberwocky), and the search for a magical item (sword) by a reluctant, unassuming hero. Other than one or two moments of dialogue, and the appearance of his original characters, there is almost nothing “Carrollian” left in the story line. People have always loved Carroll’s work for its wonderful unpredictability and bizarre round-about logic, but this story line is entirely too predictable if you ask me.

Look there are some enjoyable aspects to the movie nonetheless. The bloke sitting next to me kept on giggling throughout at some of the lighter moments, and there was definitely some “Lewis Carroll” inspired conversations (more “muchness” anyone?). There was also some quality acting. Mia Wasikowska was good as Alice, Johnny Depp was entertaining playing the Mad Hatter, and Helana Bonham Carter was quite wonderful as the evil Red Queen. Anne Hathaway on the other hand was truly awful as the White Queen. In fact, she was downright creepy with her all-white, anemic ensemble contrasting starkly with black lipstick and fingernails. To be honest, if I was a citizen of Wonderland I would be as uncomfortable with her being my political liege as I would the tyrannical Red Queen. Flouncing about distractedly with hands in the air she seemed to be only a couple of tottering steps away from a complete mental breakdown.

Then there is the meaning or message of the movie. True to form, Tim Burton steers away from the Christian symbolism of the original story, but instead settles on a kind of a “I am a woman, hear me roar” ending. Alice is transformed from a distracted 19 year old Victorian girl to a 21st century industry-shaking pioneer at the end of the movie. So we are meant to believe that capitalism is the answer for a girl who falls down rabbit holes. Boardrooms and international trade in China is the natural progression from the wonderfully multi-coloured world of Wonderland. I could almost picture Alice clicking open her laptop as she sails away to China in that very strange final scene. “Meh” is all I have to say to that. Look, I am not against a message of feminine empowerment at all, it’s just that it didn’t fit into the original character and vision of the story of Alice in Wonderland. Alice and the other characters were all somewhat anti-establishment so a colonial capitalist is just not what you would think Alice would grow up to be.

In fact, that’s the whole problem of this movie. Not everything “fits”. Burton’s overall vision doesn’t mesh with Lewis Carroll’s and so each weakens rather than strengthens the other. The special effects, especially in the 3D version are a treat, and some of the Lewis Carroll inspired conversation is delightful, but on the whole they don’t manage to lift an ordinary storyline enough to make the entire enterprise above average.

An entirely, ho hum, mildly entertaining “meh” score of 2 (and a half) out of 5 for this latest rendition of Alice in Wonderland.

The Power of Words

My four year old daughter was in tears the other day because one of her little school-friends told her that she no longer wanted to be friends. Only four and already she has experienced the power of another’s words to hurt and wound. It took many, many positive and loving words from her parents to calm her spirit and give her the courage to face another day at school. The funny thing is that no matter how old we get, words never seem to lose their power over us. Words of rejection or disrespect can totally ruin our day, whilst words of love and encouragement can inspire us to great heights.

What surprises me about Julius Malema is that he should more clearly understand the power of words. He has been central to the survival of Jacob Zuma’s political career over the last few years because of his wholehearted and passionate vocal support. Yet, Julius Malema’s career as head of the ANCL has been marked by very ill-considered and hurtful pronouncements. His latest words of controversy were sung along to an old resistance song made famous by Peter Mokabe - “Kill the boer (farmer)”. This is on top of the Equality Court ruling this week against him in a hate speech case regarding comments he made about the woman who accused Jacob Zuma of raping her.

To be fair, Julius Malema is not the only prominent member of society to ignore the power of words to hurt and victimise (a lesson even four year olds are aware of). Many politicians, shock jocks and hip-hop stars commonly utter words which only serve to label, stereotype and often seriously insult their fellow human beings. Maya Angelou, the American poet renowned for her wisdom and grace, was once queried about the fact that many of these people defended their right to do so by describing their efforts as part of their ‘art’. Angelou just gazed at her interviewer and replied, “Vulgarity is just vulgarity.” She is so correct, ugliness is just ugliness and there is no hiding from it. I am interested in the ANC’s response to the public outrage over Malema’s song by stating that this particular song is part of their cultural heritage and those offended are not fully appreciating its context. Well, I am sorry but vulgarity is just vulgarity and violence is just violence. If our words diminish or threaten our fellow human beings in any way, then to defend them by describing them as ‘art’ or ‘culture’ seems absurd.

Malema is a good example because he is well known, but really this is a lesson every human being should be deeply cognisant of ... that words have tremendous power to diminish and destroy, or to build and encourage. At this crucial juncture in our nation’s history, I would like to see our leaders and role models doing a little more building and less destroying, but this is not only a macro challenge for the famous amongst us. On a micro level the words we ordinary folk express to our neighbours, or our fellow commuters, or to those we walk past on the street should always be carefully considered – simply because our words do have such power to either build or destroy.

The reality is that not one of us is innocent of the kind of verbal violence Malema engaged in through singing that song. Many of us have repeated prejudicial, sexist or homophobic jokes just because we find them funny, or because they help us to feel superior. Many of us have at times allowed our anger, fear or personal issues to explode out of us in a torrent of words designed to punish and hurt. In some way we are all guilty of what Malema has done. As one pastor was heard to loudly proclaim to his congregation, “All those present here that are guilty of the sin of slander or gossip, may your tongue stick to the woof of your mowf!” None of us is innocent in this regard.

Equally, many of us have also been on the receiving end of hurtful words. We have endured the deep and bitter pain of being slandered, gossiped about, or disregarded. Sticks and stones break my bones but words will never harm me? What utter rubbish! We know from personal experience the tremendous power of negative words. This is why it is not hard to imagine what can happen when we begin using that power constructively. To intentionally and imaginatively use our tongues to build up, lend hope and empower. Imagine how we can transform society when we attempt to negotiate our differences more respectfully, and when we wisely use the power of our words to bless and inspire, to love and to create. I can’t help feeling that that’s how God originally intended it to be. For when God spoke, there was ... life.

A few Sundays ago there was a horrific attack on three small villages near Jos, Nigeria because of Muslim/Christian clashes. This is the latest in a series of altercations between adherents of the two religions in this region. These attacks, which saw the needless deaths of hundreds of people, are sadly only the latest amongst many similar incidents of hate in the name of religion. Not one of the major world religions has its hands clean in this regard, for while all have at times been the victims of religious hatred, at some point in history each and every single one of them have also actively participated in violence against others in the name of God.

The Vatican denies that religious reasons are solely behind this latest attack, instead pointing to many underlying social and economic factors. The Catholic Archbishop of Nigeria, John Onaiyekan, has stated that the clashes have resulted from conflict between Muslim shepherds and Christian farmers. Interestingly enough, the clash between nomads and pastoralists is ages old with many scholars believing that the story of Cain (shepherd) and Abel (farmer) is an ancient example of these tensions which are commonly created by competing over resources.

Whatever the reasons religious violence remains a deep stain on the reputations of all religions. Many of the so called ‘new age atheists’ who are vehemently against any form of religion whatsoever, would cite this as a perfect example as to why religions bring more harm to the world than good. While most Christians (sadly, not all) would equally vehemently deny that any form of violence in the name of God is ever justifiable, it is concerning that we do not seem willing to engage more comprehensively with this issue. We should carefully interrogate exactly what it is that is so deeply wrong with killing in the name of God, so as to offer more meaningful and helpful responses to those left questioning these incidents.

In her book ‘The Ten Commandments – Laws of the Heart,’ Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun, makes an interesting point regarding the third commandment – “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” (NIV). Whereas we traditionally limit our understanding of this commandment to mean that we should not use God’s name as an expletive or too casually, Chittister presents a much deeper and more significant understanding. She explains that in ancient times when these commandments were first given, society attached greater importance to names. Names had a great deal of power. To name someone was to endow them with the characteristics implied by that name (a belief still held in many cultures). Thus, to take the name of God and attach it to any exercise or venture should be done with great humility, and even trepidation. As Chittister explains swearing is not the most insulting way of taking God’s name “in vain,” but whenever and wherever we use God’s name to exploit, or to exert power, or as a means of attaining selfish gain it becomes a matter of far greater severity.

This is why any and all violence in the name of God, which is so contrary to the spirit and message of God, actually violates the sacred name, and therefore the character and nature of God. As Annie Lamott once wrote so succinctly, “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” To allow this criticism to be laid only at the door of those who participate in physical violence would be foolishly misleading. We hurt people with verbal violence “in the name of Jesus” all the time. A friend of mine who offers a fairly liberal and yet very compassionate version of Christianity once shared with me that the “religious right” (his words) never seem to engage with the content of what he has to say but seem only interested in “character assassination” (again his own words). For example, critics have emotively called him “the whore of Babylon” without ever taking the time to reasonably explain why the critic feels he has fallen into heresy. I don’t happen to think Christians need to agree with everything my friend says, but for the life of me cannot fathom why people cannot extend to him the love and grace of the same Jesus they feel so desperate to defend.

Really, what happened in Jos, Nigeria happens in so many different ways all the time. It happens whenever we use verbal violence, gossip or slander and somehow feel entitled to attach the name of Jesus to it. Of course, we can challenge and disagree with each other to our hearts content – let’s just do it in a way that is obedient to Jesus’ command to treat others with love, respect and dignity. Furthermore, as we keep in mind Chittister’s teaching regarding the third commandment, we should be extremely humble and gentle with whatever we might want to pronounce in God’s name.
__________
This article has been written by the Rev. Gareth Killeen, the editor of CruxMobi – a mobile based magazine which seeks to connect Christian faith with news, current events and real life issues. See http://cruxmedia/mobi

A Review of The Book of Eli

Hollywood’s fascination with post-apocalyptic tales continues in The Book of Eli. With its sepia-toned ash strewn landscapes and crazed cannibals it has a certain similarity of feel to The Road but frankly, that is where any comparisons should end. Whereas The Road is thought-provoking and soul-stirring, The Book of Eli is more akin to a combination of the The Last Samurai meets Mad Max.

The violence in The Road is disturbing but never glorified, for in fact, it actually enhances the overall message as it is a reminder that even the weak can live meaningfully if they cling onto hope amidst the real horrors of their world. The difference is that The Book of Eli’s main character is not a victim, but an almost untouchable warrior who deals out gruesome deaths with a flick of his wrists and with background music pumping. In other words, the violence is both gratuitous and glorified.

Denzel Washington, the son of a Pentecostal pastor and committed Christian, plays the role of Eli – a survivor of a nuclear war that devastated the globe. He believes he has been called by a mysterious ‘small’ voice to carry the only surviving copy of an old KJV Bible across America’s wastelands to some unknown destination ‘in the West’. All other Bibles had been burned by the nuclear war survivors who blamed its teachings for the war (if none of this seems clear to you, don’t worry, it’s not just you).

Along the way he runs into Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who playing to stereotype is a psychotic despot ruler of a small town that is kept in line by his brutal gang members. He has whole teams of his lackeys searching for a copy of ‘the book’ – a Bible because it is his belief that such a book will give him power over others. He is interested in expanding his empire and believes he can use the Bible as a ‘weapon’ to bend peoples wills to his own. Eli also believes in the power of this book but wants to preserve it all costs (at ALL costs believe me) because he hopes its divine wisdom in the right hands will help save his devastated world.

These differences lead to some violent altercations and a pursuit across the bleached landscape as Eli continues his westward quest. In the meantime, Carnegie’s stepdaughter (Mila Kunis) fascinated by Eli and his mysterious faith, throws her lot in with him and becomes involved in his journey and eventual escape TO Alcatraz (sorry about the spoiler).

Christian reaction to this movie in the States has been fascinating. Many Christians have wholeheartedly embraced its message because the Bible plays such a central role, and because of Eli’s example of ‘walking by faith not by sight.’ Personally, I struggle to see exactly how this movie positively promotes a Christian worldview. The fact that Washington has been voted the second most influential Christian in Hollywood, and the fact the movie involves preserving a Bible, does not necessarily mean it automatically qualifies as an authentic messenger of Gospel truth.

In fact, not at all for the violence in it quite ruins any message the movie might have. While much of what Eli does is in self-defence, the whole enterprise is far too confused about whether people of faith are ever justified in using violence to proclaim their message. The Church has made this mistake in its history (crusades and inquisitions) quite overlooking that Christ himself endured the very worst of violence and responded only with mercy and forgiveness. We should never forget that the very essence of Christ’s message is intrinsically linked to non-violent responses and ways of being. I especially disliked the way Washington was seen to stylistically whip people’s heads off with all the grace of a Samurai warrior as part of his overall mission. He also was quite prepared to hide and not use his warrior gifts while a woman was raped and her partner murdered because that might conflict with his ‘mission’.

I would give this movie 1 star out of 5, and wouldn’t bother going to see it if you haven’t already.

Peacemakers in an Age of Violence

I started wrestling with this topic because of the movie review I wrote on The Book of Eli which has these very confused messages on the relationship between faith and violence. Movies are commonly filled with violence precisely because our society is ... they mirror our reality as an act of interpretation and dialogue. Undoubtedly, we do live in an age of violence - South Africa’s own newspapers are constantly filled with stories of violent crimes and horrible violence. This age of violence is nothing new; it probably would be an apt description for almost every generation since our earliest beginnings.

This distinct lack of peace seems to come from somewhere within humanity. We seem to be at war within ourselves in terms of our prejudices, hatred, lack of forgiveness, greed and pride, all of which spills out of us and creates societal mayhem. Even the church, which bears the name of Jesus the Prince of Peace, has to its shame, allowed the cross to be displayed on shields of war. Equally shameful, is how we have historically been involved in crusades and inquisitions.

I find it incomprehensible that Christians have ever used violence as a means to propagate their message when Jesus’ challenge for us is to act as peace-makers, and to be actively involved in matters of societal justice and righteousness. Christ-followers should be involved in bringing God’s love to all areas of need – wherever there is poverty, war, disease and strife – that’s exactly where we need to be involved in working for change. In Matthew 5, Jesus said ‘Blessed are the peace-makers, for they will be called children of God’. Children of God! Peace-makers will therefore be OF God, they will be LIKE God, they will be living life like God does.

Yet, it is difficult not to feel cynical or defeated, before we even begin trying to bring peace to our societies. As Jesus himself said, ‘the poor will always be with us’, one dictator always seems to rise up to replace another, and greed so often seems to win out in the decisions made by governments and community leaders. So why even bother then? If we are not going to ever completely rid the world of all injustice and conflict, then why don’t we just stop even trying to make a difference? We may feel like John Mayer does in his Grammy nominated song ‘Waiting on the world to change,’ where he says, “it's not that we don't care, we just know that the fight ain't fair, so we keep on waiting, waiting on the world to change.”

Yet, as small and as un-influential as we may feel, the promise is that when we go out into the world as peace-makers, we WILL make a difference. Anne Herbert came up with the wonderful phrase: “Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty,” which to me, sums up Jesus’ gospel call for us to be peace-makers.

You see, when we refuse to return violence with violence; when we offer persistent and never-ending forgiveness; when we do small little things everyday that bless people instead of curse them; when we don’t return road rage with road rage; when we are kind instead of mean; and when we are generous instead of being petty – IT ALL MATTERS, IT ALL ADDS UP, IT ALL MAKES A DIFFERENCE! For then we are peace-makers, children of God living in his image, and little by little, step by step, we are bringing Jesus’ peace in situations of conflict.

Abraham Lincoln once said: “Die when I may die, I would like it to be said of me, that I always pulled up a weed and planted a flower where I thought a flower would grow.”

The small things make a difference! The small, little things we do every day transform our characters, either for good or bad. And in like manner the small, little things we do everyday can transform society bit by bit, either for good or bad.

__________
This article has been written by Gareth Killeen, the editor of CruxMobi.

A Review of The Road

I remember reading somewhere that the numbers of apocalyptic literature produced always increases when the world finds itself in some sort of crisis. It certainly seems this way post 9-11 and the global economic recession, for apocalyptic and disaster movies are a dime a dozen of late. The Road is yet another in a fairly long list but it happens one of the very best that I have ever seen.

It certainly is not easy to watch. The post-apocalyptic world of The Road is one filled with darkness and grey, despair and bleak lifelessness. Yet, amidst this hell on earth we see a father’s love for his son, and his son’s love for goodness which guides them both through the mess like a beacon in the dark.

The movie is based on Cormac McCarthy’s Pullitzer prize-winning tale of a father and son struggling to survive in a harsh world of destruction and danger, where violence looms around every corner and the ‘good people’ seem few and far between. McCarthy’s book is a tale of “love among the ruins” that reminds one to keep the flames of goodness and hope flickering even when life is at its very worst.

Set against the backdrop of an unknown apocalypse, we follow "Man" (Viggo Mortensen in his career-best) and "Boy" (11-year-old Kodi Smit-McPhee), unnamed because the world they live in has no time for luxuries such as names. The Road follows them on a dangerous journey in which nature is dead and dying, ash constantly permeates the air, and violent cannibal gangs scavenge among the weakest for their food.

You cannot watch this movie and not feel unsettled, or feel along with the Man his sheer desperation to keep his beloved son safe and alive. The Man constantly has flashbacks to better times when his wife (Charlize Theron seen only in flashbacks), shared many happy experiences before civilization fell. These scenes portray a lament for a world that will never be the same again.

So where is God in all this? Well, one character observes that if he does exist "he would have turned his back on humanity long ago." And yet despite the apparent godlessness of this tragic world, God is still somehow there, if only in bits and pieces. The Man makes a declaration that: “The child is my warrant. And if he is not the word of God, then God never spoke." These poignant words echo through the film as The Boy repeatedly challenges The Man to be compassionate to those weaker than them, to be forgiving when they are wronged, and to be thankful when rare blessings emerge.

Ultimately, the Boy is a reminder to his father that there is no point in surviving if you lose your humanity in the process. This is how they manage to carry a flame of hope through even the bleakest of landscapes. As McCarthy said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, "It is more important to be good than it is to be smart."

The Man and the Boy constantly use the expression “to carry the fire” as a reminder to keep the spark of human goodness alive. The fire represents the best of people, a kind of self-giving love in a world which has lost all sense of community. The boy has it the most, even though he was born after the apocalypse and never knew a world of charity.

“The Road is a parable of how a child is born into this world where there is no kindness. And yet, he manages to find this and nurture it and even teach [his father]," explains the director John Hillcoat, "Cormac McCarthy [the author] told me that if there's no spiritual dimension, then life is a vacuum and meaningless. He thinks that active struggle with faith is the key. This story is like the book of Job, it's just challenge after challenge after challenge."

This is a seriously good movie but also deeply disturbing. Be warned that this is not an easy movie to watch, although much of the violence is not seen but ‘heard’ and ‘felt” (it is atmospheric). On top of the violence, it also contains some strong language and a few brief scenes of male nudity.

Did you know that since the beginning of recorded history, which is around 3600 years, humanity has enjoyed only 286 years of peace? That works out at less than 8% of the time! During this period, there have been 14 500 wars in which upwards of 3.60 billion people have been killed.

Yet, we don’t need really need the testimony of history to remind us how violent our species can be. This is because our everyday news is constantly filled with random acts of violence and senseless acts of brutality. Just this week, newspapers have carried stories such as of a father beating his son to death with a metal rod, police brutality, and violent protests in Balfour.

So where exactly is Jesus in all this? After all, didn’t the Old Testament prophesy that Jesus would be “Immanuel, the Prince of Peace?” Didn’t Jesus himself promise to leave his disciples with a gift of peace – “not as the world gives, my peace I give to you”?

Sadly, the church has not often carried this spirit of Jesus’ peace out into the world. When only a couple of hundred years old, the church allowed Emperor Constantine to display the cross on shields of war, and furthermore has actively participated in violent crusades and inquisitions. This is the same church which claims its foundation is built upon the Jesus who taught and lived forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration rather than vengeance and retaliation. A couple of years back, I read the story of a group of churches in Arkansas who decided to group together in a ‘march for peace.’ Unfortunately, half way through there was a disagreement about the route of the march and they ended up dividing. This would be funny only if it wasn’t true!

So how can we as Christians approach this huge problem of violence in this world in a way that is creative, impactful and makes a positive difference? How can we become the ‘peace-makers’ Jesus challenged us to be?

First of all, we need to grapple with the fact that Scripture challenges each and every human being to be aware of what is within our own hearts. While we may not actively participate in acts of violence, sometimes we carry within us seeds of prejudice, hatred, un-forgiveness, greed and pride which all contribute to the greater problem. The Bible reminds us that thoughts of violence or hatred should be avoided just as much as real acts of violence. We all need to constantly (and humbly) guard ourselves in this regard.

Secondly, we need to understand exactly what Jesus meant when he talked about peace. For Jesus there never was a separation between inner and outward peace. Christians often argue over whether Jesus intended peace in our inner souls, or in outward society. Clearly, it is both. Like everything in faith’s journey, they are paradoxically yet wonderfully meshed together. One becomes more viable and meaningful only when it is inextricably attached to the other.

Inner peace and everything that entails (trust, faith, love, wholeness, forgiveness), will result in our lives outwardly influencing society and the relationships around us. Thus, inner peace will naturally (or supernaturally!) result in outer peace-making, yet at the same time, if we are not involved in working for outer peace, then we are not truly trusting, or having faith, or loving, or forgiving.

In essence, being a peace maker involves living lives of unselfish service, for without working for God’s justice there should be no personal peace. However, if we ONLY work for justice, without seeking inner restoration and reconciliation (redemption) then we will equally miss the point.

So perhaps the greatest challenge is to remember that in our world of horrific violence, Jesus has called us all to be peacemakers. We need to allow ourselves to be fundamentally changed and transformed by God’s love and then actively live that out within a world that is desperate for real forgiveness, mercy and goodness to not only be talked about, but also lived out in ways that are both practical and real.

A Review of Up in the Air

Up in the Air is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. George Clooney who seems to get better and better with age, plays Ryan Bingham, a ‘career transition specialist.’ His occupation really is to relieve people of theirs. He spends up to 322 days on the road, flying from one destination to another and firing employees for all those corporate bosses too afraid to do it for themselves.

Even a script with such a grim subtext doesn’t necessarily need to be depressing, which writer/director Jason Reitman has made something of a speciality with his last two features being Thank You for Smoking and Juno. With an exceptionally clever script and great starring turns from leads George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Twilight’s Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air has you laughing in one moment and then pulls at your heartstrings in another.

Adding vitality to the heartbreaking scenes of Ryan Bingham’s daily work is that real people who had experienced real life retrenchments were used instead of actors. Whether you've ever been a victim of a recession and downsizing or not, you can't help but feel sad, confused and angry right there with them.

While we are never quite sure Bingham loves his work, he certainly loves his solitary, Up in the Air existence. It’s totally devoid of commitment, affection and other messy complexities of life. He even moonlights as a motivational speaker, giving self-help lectures on how to simplify life by avoiding relational interaction and obligation.

Through the course of the movie, two spanners are thrown into Bingham’s machine. First, he meets Alex, (Vera Farmiga), his female shark-like equivalent, who is looking for no-strings-attached sex and companionship on business trips. Yet somehow these trysts gradually leave Bingham suddenly feeling lonely and hoping for more.

The other spanner is young dynamo new employee Natalie, (Anna Kendrick), who proves equally disruptive to Bingham’s detached routines. She introduces the idea to Bingham’s boss (Jason Bateman in a great cameo), of firing people remotely over the Internet, possibly saving their company millions in travel expenses—but simultaneously threatening Bingham’s ‘up in the air’ existence.

Ironically, Bingham argues that people deserve a personal touch when being let go, and demands that the inexperienced Natalie learn the old ways before trying to change the status quo. Their boss agrees, but requires Bingham to do the showing on a cross-country firing expedition. Immediately, these two challenge each other’s core beliefs, and both are left in a dilemma: Natalie struggles to live with herself as she demolishes other peoples’ lives, while Bingham is left wondering if he can finally face having a mature relationship.

Essentially the movie explores the price of relationship – and the cost of a life without them. It is significant that The Velveteen Rabbit is used in one of the scenes, as this story touches upon Bingham’s greatest struggle, his fear of becoming authentic through relationship. After all, there is no doubt that being in relationship with others is difficult. As this children’s story demonstrates, it wears out your joints, exhausts you and damages your fur.

But, it simultaneously makes your life and world wonderfully real. The Biblical message never shies away from the raw cost and difficulties of relationship, but at the same time Scripture urges (even commands) us to take up this cost. We are reminded that we have been created in love, by love and FOR love. God made us for relationships (and the commitment that involves), and ultimately, we find ourselves and our life’s true meaning within that whole process.

Bingham does grow to realise that his sterile reality is not a life at all. I am not going to give anything away, suffice to say that the movie never veers into sentimentality or predictability.

Go see this movie! (Please be warned that it does contain some strong language and sexual content).

President Zuma and the issues of sex, power and truth

It is both ironic and sad in this week of the 20th anniversary of the apartheid government’s unbanning of all political organisations, that our newspaper headlines have once again been dominated by our third democratically elected president’s sex life.

As much as the government’s public relations teams have tried to minimise the reports of President Jacob Zuma having adulterous, unprotected sex with the daughter of a close friend, this matter has continued to make headlines at home and abroad. All attempts to shut down the debate by saying that it was purely a private matter between two consenting adults, or that it is ‘un-African’ and ‘disrespectful’ to publicly discuss an elder’s sex life have failed to stem the flood of comments in radio and newspaper forums.

Frankly, I take as much issue with the attempts to stifle the outrage as I do with the fact that our country’s leader has no qualms with saying one thing and then doing another (at last year’s Aids Day, for example, Zuma urged people not to have unprotected sex. He also apologised for having unprotected sex during his rape trial).

This is because it becomes very dangerous to insist that any one public figure is above criticism and challenge. Anyone who consents to taking on a public role of leadership, from a relatively small role such as a minister in a church, to a much bigger role such as the presidency of a country should know that they no longer have the luxury of a private life. This is because they are standing for something bigger than themselves, and have a responsibility to lead their people with integrity and in a way that promotes respect and dignity for all.

The people who put them in those positions of power should never absolve themselves of their own responsibilities, which is to keep their leadership accountable and honest. Even in a time of kings and absolute power, Nathan the prophet saw fit to challenge King David on his own sexual improprieties (2 Samuel 12).

Of course our leaders will make mistakes, and it would be unrealistic and even foolish of us to expect our leaders to be perfect. And once leaders make a mistake they should be treated with absolute grace and dignity (even if they have done something undignified themselves). Yet, at the same time they should be challenged and held responsible, because we have every right to expect our leaders to live by the principles they promote or were elected to uphold.

This is why the only ‘disrespect’ I find in this situation is to be told by others that we have no right to challenge our President because he is an elder and that this is not the African way. Please don’t misunderstand me, I believe we should deeply respect each other’s cultures and ways of being, but at the same time, please give the rest of us some respect. Should we really be expected to believe that it is cultural practice for a president to take to his bed his own godchild, or the daughter of an old friend? Does cultural practice really permit a president to publicly apologise for irresponsible sex, and then to later urge others to take wear condoms, but then when temptation arises to recommit the very same acts?

The Bible has a lot to say about power and its abuses. Running like a thread through all its teachings is the theme that with power comes both responsibility and accountability. Respecting someone else’s culture means listening to them, caring for them, and being willing to relate across differences, but it certainly does not mean we can never challenge or disagree with certain cultural practices. And yes, we can do the right thing the wrong way. We should never challenge each other disrespectfully, or without carefully considering each other’s positions and our own cultural blind spots, but the fact remains that without the principle of accountability balancing out the temptations of power we run the risk of regressing as a nation to what we were 20 years ago.