Captain America: The Righteous Man

Avengers: Age of Ultron is finally in the theaters! Watching it on opening weekend was definitely exciting (if a little pricey), and it was a most enjoyable movie! If you haven't seen it yet, I highly encourage you to do so.

Of course, as the newest Avengers movie comes out, those "favorite Avenger" conversations are bound to arise.  Where do I stand? Well....

There's not much question here. I knew absolutely nothing about Captain America before I saw the first movie. The only time I had ever heard of him was the minor reference to him in "The Pursuit of Happiness."  But, when I finally saw the movie, I found myself pleasantly surprised by a superhero who wasn't stuck up, didn't think too much of himself, upheld doing the right thing, stuck by his friends in the tough times, and didn't back down from a fight even when he didn't have much chance of winning.  

Now, I know what you're thinking. I've heard it before. "He's too perfect." "He's not relatable." "He has no character growth because he already starts off good." I've even heard: "He's arrogant." (Now that one I take issue with. But we'll get to that.) 

I agree, there isn't a lot of character development, especially when you compare him to Ironman.  Ironman grows a lot in his three movies.  But I think people are too quick to dismiss Captain America from the "interesting characters" list just because they think he has no room for growth. From real life, we all know that even the people who look like they have it all together have areas to work on. I have to say that I think Marvel was hinting at this with Captain America in the new Avengers movie. 

*****SPOILERS****

When Captain America and Ironman are splitting logs, Ironman says he doesn't trust someone who doesn't have a dark side. Cap doesn't really make much of a response. What he was haunted with was his memories of Peggy, and the life he could have had with her. Granted, by the end he seems kind of determined not to let it bother him. But I think there might be more to it. I can't say I know what just yet, but I wouldn't dismiss Cap as having no struggles.   

********END OF SPOILERS*******

I also think that people are too quick to judge that Captain America has had an easy life. Let's remember what his life was like before Dr. Erskine discovered him. He was a puny kid from Brooklyn. He still stood up for what was right, but he took the hits that came with it. Before that, he lost his father and his mother. According to Marvel's Wikia, his father died when Steve was a kid, and his mother died when Steve was in his late teens, probably before he was eighteen.  (http://marvel.wikia.com/Captain_America_%28Steven_Rogers%29) Hardly sounds like a kid who's had life handed to him on a silver platter to me. But he was committed to doing the right thing and not letting tough times (or "tough people"/bullies) get him down. Like he said to Peggy: "You start running, they'll never let you stop." Even when it didn't make sense for him to put up a fight because he was sure to lose (like Bucky said: "You know, sometimes I think you like getting punched,") he didn't give up.  

One of my favorite parts of the first movie is when Erskine comes and talks to Steve before the procedure.  

"Can I ask you a question?"

"Just one?" 

"Why me?" 

"I suppose that is the only question that matters. ...The serum amplifies everything that is inside, so good becomes great; bad becomes worse. This is why you were chosen: because a strong man, who has known power all his life, can lose respect for that power. But a weak man knows the value of strength, and knows compassion."

"Thanks...I think." 

"Whatever happens tomorrow, you must promise me one thing: that you will stay who you are. Not a perfect soldier, but a good man." 

Steve raises his glass and says: "To the little guys." 

Steve was chosen for something more than physical characteristics or intelligence. He was chosen because he is a good man. I think the best way to understand the goodness of Captain America and his transformation into the super-soldier is this article: The Catholicity of Captain America.  

Erskine doesn't think Steve is perfect, and doesn't expect him to be. He wants him to just keep being himself: a good person.  There is nothing about Steve Rogers that would make anyone think that he could be a hero; they wouldn't even accept him as a regular soldier. At least, nothing on the outside. Nothing physical: no muscle, no outstanding intelligence, no knack for machines.... What makes him stand out from the rest is something much deeper than that: his virtue and sense of duty.  

Another area where I see a struggle of Captain America's is in the first movie. 

******SPOILERS*******

Captain America has just lost his best friend Bucky in a tragic accident on a train. He seems to have disappeared, and Peggy goes looking for him. She finds him in the shambles of a bar where Cap and Bucky and their friends would go to talk and have fun. 

Steve sits at a table, bottle nearby and glass in hand.  

"Dr. Erskine said that the serum wouldn't just effect my muscles, it would effect my cells. Create a protective system of regeneration and healing. Which means, um, I can't get drunk. Did you know that?" 

...

Peggy says, "It wasn't your fault." 

"Did you see the reports?"
"Yes."
"Then you know that's not true." 

Cap blames himself for Bucky's death, even though it wasn't his fault.  There really was nothing he could do. And Peggy tells him that Bucky's death was the death of a hero who thought his friend was worth dying for, and hardly something for Cap to take credit for (whether he means to, or not).  I think that's something a lot of us can relate to. When bad things happen, we're tempted to blame ourselves, even if there was nothing we could have done to stop it.  

*****END OF SPOILERS*******

As far as being un-relatable, I will agree that Ironman is slightly more relatable for most of us. At some point in our life, we've made a poor choice or many poor choices. Seeing Ironman rise from that, though, and become a better man is a journey that we all appreciate because it's one that all of us are on. It is also great to see Ironman, and the other Avengers, learn to use their abilities, talents, and skills for something greater than themselves, power, money, or whatever else they might be tempted to use them for. They make a choice to use their abilities to protect people.  

Nonetheless, I wouldn't dismiss Captain America as completely un-relatable. 

***********SPOILERS***********

In the new movie, for example. Ironman lets out a not-so-gentile word, to which Cap replies: "Language!" And he gets teased about it for the rest of the movie. Well, for some of us, that's definitely relatable. Some of us have definitely been the person to call out the person or group of persons on their language, and we can be ridiculed for it. It's not really a fun experience, though, as in Cap's case, it can be amusing. But the whole "we can't talk like this because of so-and-so" can be a little bit frustrating for the person doing the calling out. It's usually not about "don't talk that way in front of me" (though it can be); but it's about "you shouldn't really talk that way period." Of course, all of us let slip a word every now and then that we're not so proud of. I'm not condoning that; but it is the human condition. So don't rant on me about judging people by their language because I've heard it before. It's not that the language offends my ears so much as it offends your mouth and it offends the One Who made that mouth to speak words of truth and blessing.  

**********END OF SPOILERS***********

I also find Cap relatable in his desire to do what's right. I think part of what makes Cap such a valuable asset to the Avengers is not just his knowledge of war tactics and ability to take the lead and strategize while in the line of fire; but also his integrity. Cap is a soldier out of the 1940s. While not all the practices of World War II may be heralded as the most morally sound, it was a just war. The soldiers in that war were fighting for peace and justice; they fought against oppression and injustice towards weaker states, and the evils of the Nazi regime.  I believe that in the '40s there was a higher moral code among people than what we have today.  Moral relativism wasn't as rampant then as it is now, and so people had a clearer idea that there was right and there was wrong.  Cap is out of that era, and he holds himself to a higher moral standard than the average person these days. That's what makes him a valuable asset to the Avengers.  He holds everyone to a higher standard than "getting by." I love Tony Stark's snarky comments, and his response to Captain America in "The Avengers," about "cutting the wire" is clever. It's what we would all like to do, and, morally speaking, what is a good thing to do if you can. However, when you don't know if you can do that without the other person dying, there are people who hold themselves to that higher standard and who will, like Cap says, "lay their life down on the wire and let the other guy crawl over them."  Sacrificing your life for someone else, when there's no other way for you both to get out alive, is heroism. 

I'm not putting Stark down by that, either. He does sacrifice himself in "The Avengers," thus proving Cap and anyone else wrong about him. He has a heart, and a conscience. He can make the sacrificial act. Finding the way around it is great when you can; after all, one of the natural goods we strive after as human beings is self-preservation.  But there are times when you can't "cut the wire."  Cap holds the Avengers to a higher standard than "cutting the wire," or "doing just enough."  It's about doing what's right, as it ought to be. That's what heroes do. They make mistakes; but, it's what they do after those mistakes that matters.  As Fulton Sheen said, "There are two kinds of people: a person who falls down and stays down; and a person who falls but who gets back up again."  The Avengers are heroes because they get back up again.  They aren't heroes because they never fall; they're heroes because they don't let that fall be the end. 

I really enjoyed how the Avengers sort-of nickname for Cap is "old man."  Even though he doesn't look like it, he is older than all of them. He's seen a totally different century, a different kind of war, a different kind of America than the rest of the Avengers.  He's got a mentality like Samwise Gamgee: "There's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."  Even when things look bleak, he's determined to keep doing what he knows he should do; not what is easy, not what reaps the most benefit for everybody, but what is right.  It's people like that who make us all want to be better.  I think part of the reason why some people don't like Captain America is that he's the kind of person who holds you to that higher standard.  A lot of us are in the "getting by" mentality instead of the "excellence" mentality, and we get intimidated or defensive when people call us on to be more than what we are.  But we need those people. We're not perfect, and we know it. But we can't work on our imperfections and become better if no one points them out to us, or if no one shows us how to be more than "the sum of our weaknesses," as St. John Paul II called it.  

A dear friend, and fellow Avengers analyst said this to me when she heard about the blog post I was writing: "[Cap]'s almost like playing Jesus -- he's "good." He's almost like good incarnate. That makes him the hardest of the Avengers to play, and Chris Evans does a beautiful job!"  

Another great thing about Captain America, though, is that I don't see him looking down on others because they don't hold them to that higher standard.  "Avengers" is the movie where he's learning to balance holding himself to that higher standard and expecting others to do the same with acknowledging and understanding the struggles and imperfections of his teammates.  In the end, they work through those differences.  They learn to work with each other's strengths and help each other in their weaknesses.  A great example of this is in "The Winter Soldier."  

************SPOILERS*************** 

Cap and Black Widow have just come to Falcon's house to hide out because they're on the run from S.H.I.E.L.D./Hydra.  (And, can I say, I love Cap's response to Project Insight: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."  In our fallen state, the two exist together. But when we let fear take control of us, we lose our freedom.) 

Nat is sitting down, looking thoughtful.  Cap comes in and asks her if she's okay. She casually replies that she is; but Cap is persistent and gets her to tell him what's on her mind. 

"When I first joined SHIELD, I thought it was going straight. But I guess I just traded in the KGB for HYDRA. I thought I knew whose lies I was telling, but... I guess I can't tell the difference anymore."

"There's a chance you might be in the wrong business."

"I owe you."

"It's okay."

"If it was the other way around, and it was down to me to save your life, and you be honest with me, would you trust me to do it?"

"I would now. And I'm always honest."

"Well, you seem pretty chipper for someone who just found out they died for nothing.?

"Well, I guess I just like to know who I'm fighting."

Cap is learning to trust his teammates. It's not always easy. He knows their imperfections, for example: Natasha's not afraid to trick people and tell lies if she has to. That makes her good at her job, but what's the guarantee that she's not lying to her friends, too? Nick Fury is the man in charge. He calls the shots, and he's good at it. But he's also afraid. He doesn't trust people, and that makes is hard for Cap to trust him. But because of what they've been through, Cap learns to trust Nat and Fury. 

"All you can do's try to know who your friends are as you head off to the war." -The Call by Regina Spektor.

************END OF SPOILERS**********

I don't think that Captain America is flawless, as I made clear before. But I think that he is a very good image of the righteous man. The righteous man is a man of the Beatitudes, a man of virtue, a man who wants to do what is right no matter what. Captain America is that kind of man. This makes it, sometimes, a bit awkward for him because the rest of his team is often in a different mindset. But, for those striving for righteousness in their lives, Captain America can be someone they really relate to. You stand for what's right, and sometimes people beat you down for it. They might actually admire your convictions, but it doesn't show very much. Still, affirmation or no affirmation, you know what you have to do and you don't let what's popular get in the way of that.  

You might retort and say: "Well Cap goes against his principles and says a bad word or two later in the movie."  Yes, and we all have had those moments where we failed, right? Where we abandoned principles to fit in? And sometimes a word slips. Cap is also a World War II soldier, and I'm sure that it wasn't the only time that a cuss word has crossed his lips. But, compared to some, he keeps it pretty clean.  I'm not saying Cap is perfect. I'm saying he's exactly what Erskine called him: "A good man." 

The righteous man is a figure in many books of Scripture, especially Proverbs. But I think these two Bible verses summarize best what I love about Captain America. 

Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can even a strong man be more pure than his Maker? -Job 4:17

But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. -1 Timothy 6:11 

"Those who lead many to righteousness." Sounds like Cap to me. He's determined to do the right thing, and, as the main leader of the Avengers, he leads them all to do the same (so far as he is able).  Cap doesn't lord his strength over anyone. Like Erskine said, he knows compassion. He knows the value of the strength that he has because he's been on the other end of a strong man's punches.  He uses his power for good.  He doesn't pretend to be more than what he is, and he's not one to look for attention.  

Cap's famous line from "The Avengers" is: "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that." I think that the verse from Job sounds a lot like something that Captain America would relate to. He doesn't consider himself to be perfect. He's strong, but he's humble about it. He doesn't flaunt his strength or use it imprudently. He uses his gifts for good, to help people. 

The verse from 1 Timothy is also really great, and it's an encouragement to all of us who feel like the Captain America in our circle: the one who stands for what's right, and isn't always esteemed for it (and sometimes is flat out ridiculed for it).  Flee from sin and temptation, and continue to pursue righteousness, virtue, godliness, endurance, and gentleness. Those are qualities that I see in Captain America. He has a determination to do what's right, and to keep doing it. He is a righteous man. He is a godly man (in the original comics, he's an Irish Catholic!). He has endurance. Even when everything gets difficult, he doesn't quit. But he's also gentle. He's a gentleman, first of all; and there's a genuine look of calm and kindness about him in some of the scenes where the action has died down, like when he's trying to help Black Widow sort through what's bothering her in "The Winter Soldier."  He values life, and anything that even threatens it he regards with a lot of caution. 

"Every time someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people die. Every time."

I think, in some ways, Captain America intimidates people.  They see his commitment to do what's right, and they know that this is what we all are supposed to do. It is often the case that when someone challenges us to be more than what we are, our first instinct is to defend our position, and sometimes to lash out at the challenger.  

But, when did righteousness become "arrogant?" When did virtue become "old fashioned?" When people became afraid of the implications of living righteously and virtuously. You're not always going to be popular. In fact, there will be a lot of times where people really don't like you. They see you as a threat to their position, their way of life, and they don't want to change the way they live, so they find fault with you.  I think perhaps some of the attacks on Captain America stem from that.  Chris Evans, the actor who plays Captain America, even says that Captain America is the everything that he wishes he could be. When we see where we fail, there are two things we can do with it: let it destroy us (and as a result we lash out and tear down others), or let it drive us. 

Captain America is my favorite superhero, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.  He really is the best of them. He's righteous, true, and good. He's committed to protecting people, and to doing what's right. This isn't arrogant; it's conviction. He knows what he has to do, and he'll make whatever personal sacrifices he has to in order to do it.  He is the righteous man; the good man; and we could use a lot more of those in the world we live in. 

"I know I'm asking a lot. But the price of freedom is high. It always has been. And it's a price I'm willing to pay. And if I'm the only one, then so be it. But I'm willing to bet I'm not." -Captain America, The Winter Soldier 

Fight on, soldier! Fight on!

Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. -Daniel 12:3

Star Wars VII and the Return of the Cynics

Before we get into the subject of the blog post, let me make a disclaimer: I don't hate cynics. It's good to have these kinds of people in our lives to help us take a reality check sometimes, or be realistic, or see the other side of a situation, or the more negative aspects of a topic...the list goes on. In fact, some of the movie characters I enjoy the most are cynics.

Case in point. Who doesn't love Anton Ego? 

Cue the music! STAR WARS!!! 

Yes, that's right! The official trailer for Star Wars VII is here!!! Watch it now! 

So let's go through a scene-by-scene analysis: 

(1) Lucasfilm Ltd. slowly fades in on a black screen. The excitement starts to build. How many times have you seen that logo before watching a great movie about a galaxy far, far away? 

(2) The music fades in. And the excitement/nostalgia increases. Not to mention, you get an awesome long shot of the Tattooine landscape, a familiar sight from "A New Hope." Looking good. Looking good. 

(3) Someone's zooming by on a speeder. What's that in the background? Oh, sweet! It's a Star Destroyer that crashed in the sand. That's cool! Fade to black. 

(4) Voiceover: "The Force is strong in my family." Close shot of the Darth Vader mask, pretty banged up and kind of deformed, but still distinguishable. Creepy but cool. "My Father has it." So it's Luke talking, which you may have already guessed, since this quote is in "Return of the Jedi." 

(5) Fade to black. Cut to scene of R2-D2, and a person in a black cape kneeling beside him. "I have it." The person reaches out and touches R2 with a mechanical hand. (A little odd, considering that Luke's prosthetic hand in Star Wars V actually looked very realistic.) 

(6) "My sister has it." Scene of a lightsaber being handed to someone. It looks like a girl's hands. All right. Is it Leia? Fade to black. 

(7) "You have that power, too." And the music builds to the dramatic theme that we all love while the magical words appear on the screen: "This Christmas...." Cue excitement and drumroll on the desk that I was sitting at when I watched the trailer for the first time. 

(8) Cue lots of action scenes giving subtle hints at the plot and content of the movie, culminating in the MILLENNIUM FALCON (AHHHH!) being chased by a TIE Fighter. Fade to black. 

(9) Voiceover: "Chewie..." Fade in (much older) HAN SOLO and CHEWBACCA, and Han says, "We're home," while grinning in that way that only Han Solo can. And add to that cheers and gleeful exclamations by me: "Oh my gosh!! YES!!!!" 

So there you have it. My reaction to the trailer for Star Wars, Episode VII: The Force Awakens. 

Now I consider myself an avid fan of Star Wars. I didn't see IV, V, and VI very early in my childhood, but once I did see them I was hooked. Han Solo was my favorite (obviously), closely followed by Luke and R2-D2. I loved the movies, collected the action figures, read whatever I could manage at that age (but, let's face it, chapter books that are 300 pages or so when you're not even in middle school yet can be a struggle), and even started writing a story of my own that took place in a galaxy far far away. 

I watched I, II, and III eventually, and I liked them, though not as much as IV, V, and VI. Over time, though, I did get more critical of I, II, and III and started thinking about why they just weren't as good. 

The Phantom Menace had some good points. Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi for instance. Qui-Gonn Jinn was also pretty cool, and I liked little-kid Anakin. Jar-Jar Binx was funny, but...well, he wasn't smart. Pod racing is cool, but...the Millennium Falcon is cooler. And the bad guys just weren't as interesting. The fight with Darth Maul was pretty awesome. But, all other things considered, it just wasn't all that good.

Attack of the Clones wasn't much better. Again, Ewan McGregor did a great job of keeping things interesting. Obi-Wan's investigation and encounters with Jango Fett were pretty cool, and he's got some great one-liners. Anakin and Padme's so-called romance, though, really killed it. Ugh...just...no. I'm sorry, George Lucas, but romantic films are definitely not your forte. Things got better with the Jedi Battle. Mace Windu was pretty awesome in that whole scene. But, apart from that...not a whole lot to be said.

Revenge of the Sith: The beginning made you think: "Oh hey, this is pretty cool! Maybe this one will actually be pretty good." But...once we're back on Couruscant, ...no. More poorly written romance dialogue between Anakin and Padme. (Ughhh...make it stop!) (I will say that Anakin's reaction to being a dad is pretty great. But after that... :P) For the third time, Ewan McGregor saves the movie from complete disaster. He and General Grievous were pretty cool (and Boga! Love Boga.).

But yeah...overall, kind of a bummer. 

So, of course, cynics being what they are, when people who claim to be true fans of the movies see other people who are also true fans of the movies getting excited about Star Wars VII, the inevitable Facebook status appears: 

"I don't see what everyone's so excited about. Everyone was excited about The Phantom Menace, and look how bad that movie was." 

Okay, killjoy. Thanks for your perspective. And, I might add, there's one thing that The Force Awakens has that The Phantom Menace didn't and it is definitely worth consideration. What on earth could that be? What indeed....

Han Solo of course! The Phantom Menace did not have Han Solo, or Chewbacca, or the Millennium Falcon, or really anything that was essential to the awesomeness of IV, V, and VI. So there. 

More seriously, though...

Lots of people are saying that Star Wars VII will not be as good as IV, V, and VI. Okay. I'll agree with that. But, here's the shocker. That is OKAY! IV, V, and VI are awesome because they are the originals and they introduced us to the world of Star Wars.  You don't get better than the original.  Every once in a while you'll get a killer sequel; but something always remains special about that first movie, usually because it was where we first got to know our favorite characters, worlds, dialogues, etc.  Whatever it is that you love about IV, V, and VI, you love them because they are what they are.  Obviously, VII is not going to be IV, V, and VI, so it's not going to be as wonderful as IV, V, and VI because VII is not IV, V, and VI.  You want to know the secret to enjoying the movie? Let Star Wars VII be Star Wars VII.  One of the great ways to enjoy movies is to let them speak for themselves. 

Obviously, I don't go into movies with absolutely no expectations. That wouldn't make sense because in order to be Star Wars it has to carry on the legacy of Star Wars using many of the techniques, worlds, characters, etc. from the originals.  It would be like forgetting who I was on purpose so I could focus on the goodness of this week; but that wouldn't be good because I'd forget a week that had informed my life and personhood. And...you can't just wipe things from your memory. Not sure if that makes any sense; but I was trying to be philosophical.  

At the same time, though, I go in with the attitude of giving the movie a chance.  I believe that there's got to be something good about this one, and I decide to look out for it. Star Wars movies are meant to be enjoyed. So, I'm going to walk into that theater a day or two after Christmas with an optimistic but informed mindset.  

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about how I, II, and III weren't (and in some ways couldn't be) better than IV, V, and VI.  

Remember that the storyline of the prequels is a descending one, not ascending. It is the story about how Anakin was good, and then turned evil.  It's not going to be a happy story.  It's going to be about a lot of his mistakes and poor choices.  The originals, on the other hand, are about rising out of the ashes and restoring freedom from the emperor's tyranny.  That's a brighter and more enjoyable story (unless you like sad stories).  

Anakin and Padme's romance, if we may call it that, was just...not good. As I think about it, there really is nothing selfless about it. The most beautiful relationships are the ones where one makes sacrifices for the other.  I can't think of a time at all where Anakin sacrificed something for Padme, or where she did the same for him.  Anakin defends her, yeah. But a bodyguard can do that, too. It doesn't make it romance. And, they kind of dragged each other into dangerous situations in Attack of the Clones. Padme was too stubborn not to do anything, and Anakin didn't care about stopping her, even though he knew it was going to be dangerous. The indifference there was annoying.  So...the relationship seemed based solely on emotions and not actions. (Han and Leia on the other hand: end of VI. Look at what Han says to Leia. "You love him, don't you? ...That's all right. I understand. When he comes back, I won't get in the way." Aww! He's willing to let her go, even though he loves her, because he thinks that she's in love with Luke.) 

Corruption: we like it when the protagonist overcomes corruption and rises above it. Well, given the storyline, Anakin doesn't do that. He falls to the emperor's lies and deception. 

The originals are just a lot more fun to watch than I, II, and III.  In the prequels, you're watching characters make mistakes and suffer, and go lower and lower (in Anakin's case), and their actions hurting those around them. The originals are about friendship, working through differences, working together, struggling and fighting together, and all for the common goal of making the galaxy a better place to live.  

I think Star Wars VII has that positive storyline going for it. It's coming after the good stuff, so maybe it will be about more good stuff. Of course, it can't all be good or else there'd be no conflict and that would be a boring story.  It's also called "The Force Awakens," and the teasers have hinted that the Dark Side is returning. That should be interesting to see! But the overall theme of the trailer isn't a dark one, so I think that there is, forgive my pun, hope (a new hope, if you will) for VII.  It already seems to have some of the great elements of Star Wars as a whole going for it. Also, in the history of the movies, when it's not George Lucas directing the movies they tend to be better.  And George Lucas isn't directing VII, so I think the story stands a good chance of being good. I'm curious to see the plot revealed and unfolding.  One thing's for sure: come Christmastime, I will be making a trip to the theater.  

Now, cynics will be cynics, and without them we probably wouldn't take a more critical view of things, which we need to do sometimes.  But I would say this: don't judge or criticize people for being excited about the return of Star Wars to the big screen. If you really love Star Wars, you should be excited about this too, and give the movie a chance to carry on the Star Wars legacy.  It's great just to see the galaxy far far away returning to the big screen. After the movie comes out, make your judgments then, and I will listen to you. But don't crush people's hopes before the movie even has a chance to run. Let us revel the moment: Star Wars is back and we are excited!!!! 

Until next time, "May the Force be with you." 

     

Humility Towards the Person

A year ago, I was in Austria taking a class in Philosophy of the Human Person.  I learned a lot of things in that class, and I truly believe it has changed the way I think about a lot of things (for the better).

One of these ways became very clear to me during the fall.  I started to realize that it can be irritating to people when another person kind of assumes that they know all there is to know about that person. Maybe that person doesn't think that they really do know all there is to know about the other person, or maybe they really do. Either way, the attitude that becomes apparent, where they jump to conclusions about what you would do, or what you would say, or what it must be like in your family, or in your home, seems rather arrogant at times, doesn't it?

I'm not saying that every time that someone makes an assumption about my character that I'm annoyed by it. That's not true at all. But the attitude with which the person makes these assumptions make a lot of difference. That attitude mainly boils down to whether or not there is a real arrogance about it.  For example, someone you know thinks they know all there is to know about your life because you were homeschooled, and they knew people who were homeschooled and also knew a lot about their lives. So when you're in a situation that might be different for a homeschooler, they jump to conclusions about you and say: "Oh I bet this is weird for you," or "You must be thinking...," or "You probably are ready to...."

This is not the same as when someone asks an honest question because they are curious about the way you see something or the way you experience things.  I'm trying to put my finger on what really and truly makes the difference, so bear with me.

I think what it comes to, honestly, is a sense of wonder.  This has been a recurring theme lately: the intentional stepping back from something and just letting ourselves enter into wonder and amazement at something.  This wonder, I think, can be applied to the person.  We need to take a step back from the people in our lives, even those whom we have known for our whole lives, and realize that we do not know everything about them. In truth, we cannot know everything about a person because each person is unique. We do not know their interior self.  Even if they are very open with us, we don't know everything about them. Only God knows us that well, and even better: He knows us better than we know ourselves!

Wonder.  Stepping back and recognizing that we don't know everything there is to know about this person, and that, to whatever extent, they are still mysterious, and just being amazed at them for who they are, for who God has made them.  I think we can tell when people do that.  There is this look of genuine curiosity and amazement at or interest in the person that we are.

This wonder requires a humility towards the person.  A humility that puts us in a state of wonder.  This is a humble recognition that there is so much to this person before us.  So much that we don't know, as well as what we do know.

We can learn from Jesus' humility. He knows absolutely everything about us. He knows us more deeply and even better than we know ourselves.  But yet, as He expressed to St. Faustina, He still wants us to tell Him what's going on in our lives.  He loves to hear our voices. He longs for that intimate conversation with us.  At the same time, He reveals to us in Scripture what this wonder towards the person looks like.  The apostles, who knew Him so well, often were amazed (and even frightened) at Who Jesus was! "Who is this that even the wind and the seas obey Him?" On the contrary, Jesus said of the people of Nazareth, His hometown, that they had no respect for Him because a prophet is never respected in his own hometown.  "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (Mark 6:4). The people of Nazareth had seen Jesus grow up and learn the trade of carpentry in the home of Mary and Joseph. They thought they knew all about Jesus. But when He shows up and starts doing miracles and saying these incredible things, they are all confused.  They jump to conclusions and even accusations because they know Jesus' background...or so they think. Do they really know Him? They know about Him, sure enough. But do they know HIM? It would seem not.

That's all I've got for now. But I hope that it was interesting and informative, and maybe it'll help you to examine yourself more and realize your own need to wonder at the people around you and at our God, as well, Who always has so much more to Him than we can know now. :) God bless! 

The 5 Love Languages

I have yet to actually read Chapman's "The 5 Love Languages."  But in the last year, I did take the quiz to discover my primary love languages.  You can do so here: http://www.5lovelanguages.com. 

Between hearing my mother talk about the content of the book, and seeing how others have put the quiz to good use in discovering their own love languages, I've had some time to think about and discover some common themes in the culture's reception of the book and the knowledge it has imparted to society.

You'll hear a lot of people talk about what they're love language is.  Among my own circles of friends, it will come up in conversation often.  Not overly frequently; but often.

Here is a basic description of the 5 different love languages from Chapman's website:

Quality Time: "...nothing says “I love you” like full, undivided attention. Being there for this type of person is critical, but really being there—with the TV off, fork and knife down, and all chores and tasks on standby—makes you feel truly special and loved. Distractions, postponed activities, or the failure to listen can be especially hurtful. Whether itʼs spending uninterrupted time talking with someone else or doing activities together, you deepen your connection with others through sharing time."  

Physical Touch: "A person whose primary language is Physical Touch is, not surprisingly, very touchy. Hugs, pats on the back, and thoughtful touches on the arm—they can all be ways to show excitement, concern, care, and love. Physical presence and accessibility are crucial, while neglect or abuse can be unforgivable and destructive. Appropriate and timely touches communicate warmth, safety, and love to you." 

Receiving Gifts: "The receiver of gifts thrives on the love, thoughtfulness, and effort behind the gift. If you speak this language, the perfect gift or gesture shows that you are known, you are cared for, and you are prized above whatever was sacrificed to bring the gift to you. A missed birthday or a hasty, thoughtless gift would be disastrous—so would the absence of everyday gestures. Gifts are heartfelt symbols to you of someone else's love and affection for you." 

Words of Affirmation: "Actions don’t always speak louder than words. If this is your love language, unsolicited compliments mean the world to you. Hearing the words, “I love you,” are important— hearing the reasons behind that love sends your spirits skyward. Insults can leave you shattered and are not easily forgotten. You thrive on hearing kind and encouraging words that build you up." 

Acts of Service:  "Anything you do to ease the burden of responsibilities weighing on an “Acts of Service” person will speak volumes. The words he or she most wants to hear: “Let me do that for you.” Laziness, broken commitments, and making more work for them tell speakers of this language their feelings don’t matter. When others serve you out of love (and not obligation), you feel truly valued and loved."  

Knowing your love language is definitely of value.  It is good to know yourself and to know what you need.  Knowing your primary love language also helps you to know more clearly the way you show love to others, since, often, the primary way you receive love is the primary way you give love.  

But this cannot be the end all be all: "This is how I love and this is how I need to be loved." What's wrong with that statement? There is no other subject in that sentence than "I."  Love is an exchange between two persons.  By definition, it is willing the good for the other for the other's own sake.  St. John Paul II calls this "friendship" and ranks it as the highest form of love. (Marriage, he says, is the most intimate kind of friendship.)  

I'm glad knowing your love language is beneficial to you. I'm happy to know mine, too.  But, I've realized that this knowledge, instead of showing us how to love others, can lead to putting limitations on the way we show love.  We think because primarily our way of showing love is acts of service that we can/want/should only do acts of service to show people we love them. But the fact is, this is not what loving others looks like.  Love is about sacrifice.  It's not only about what fulfills me, what makes me happy.  No. Love is giving and receiving, and the love languages are about giving love in the way that those receiving that love need it.  Now, of course, because this goes both ways, sometimes other people need to let you love them in the way that you primarily show love, even if that is not the primary love language they respond to. That is part of the exchange of love. You need to give love in that way and so that means sometimes people need to receive love in that way because you need to show them love in that way.  But we must respect and honor that this is true for the other person as well.  

To put this in context, let's set up a scenario: Patti and Maggie are friends. Patti's primary love language is acts of service, and the lowest-ranking love language in her results is physical touch.  Maggie, on the other hand, has the primary love language of physical touch and acts of service is the one she gives/responds to the least.  How does this work in their relationship? 
Patti realizes that Maggie shows her love by giving hugs, squeezing another person's hand affectionately, or even high-fiving.  Maggie needs to show people love in that way.  Patti does not necessarily enjoy being touched; but Patti knows Maggie is expressing her love for her when Maggie gives her a hug.  How do you find the balance? You recognize that this is an expression of love.  You stop focusing on you and you focus on them: they are showing you that they love you, and that is something to be thankful for, whether the expression is our favorite or not.  Patti realizes that, even though Patti does not enjoy hugs, Maggie needs to show her love by giving Patti hugs and Patti has reached a point where that is fine with her. 

Now, on the other hand, Maggie needs to notice that Patti shows how she loves other people by doing things for them.  So when Patti washes the dishes so Maggie won't have to since Maggie is stressed about the amount of homework she has to get done, that is equivalent to Maggie giving someone a hug because they're stressed.  Patti is showing Maggie love by doing something to help her out.  Maggie should not be upset that Patti did not give her a hug; she should be grateful that Patti wanted to help Maggie out and show her love for Maggie by taking care of the dishes.  

Like so many things in our lives, love languages are about balance.  Balance definitely isn't easy; but who ever said that life was made to be easy? Or love for that matter?  

So, the next time you really want to show that person that you love them, don't immediately revert to your top love language. Look at what that person does for other people to show them that they care, and do something similar for them. If they love to hang out with people (quality time), then set up a time to get coffee together and just sit and talk and be present.  If they are always building people up with words of affirmation, do that for them: tell them what they do well, what about them inspires you, etc.  If they are always making or buying something for someone else, even if it's something as simple as a candy bar or a note, do that for them in return.  

I'm not saying that you should hide your primary love language away in a dark corner never to be seen. Heck no. God made you to love that way. You are meant to love that way. What is necessary is that we look around us and recognize that others need to be loved in particular ways at particular times. How do we know when to love them one way vs. another? Well, that's tricky. That requires us to be perceptive and tactful. 

We can't bar ourselves from receiving love in certain ways. That hurts people. It hurts to be told by someone that they don't want you to love them in the way that may be your primary way of showing love.  We must find a balance, and come to a point where we are able to receive love and give love in various ways. Naturally some are stronger than others; God made us that way. But we need to remember again and again that love is not just about giving love the way we want/need to give love and receiving love in the way we want/need to receive love.  It is also about giving love in the way that others need to receive it, and receiving love in the way that others need to give it to us.  

"Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude.  Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."  -1 Corinthians 13:4-7

"The Hobbit:" Thoughts on Tolkien's book and Jackson's movies

I am extremely blessed to be able to take a class on the great author J.R.R. Tolkien this semester as my literature core for my major.  Who'd have thought that you could read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings," among other works of Tolkien's, for homework?  It's been wonderful! I just finished "The Hobbit" today, and it was a tremendous joy to read this book again.  The last time I read it was when I was 10 years old or so.  Reading it again was almost like being a kid again.  I would sit and read, and I would be enthralled by the story, having forgotten many of the smaller details and the parts of the story that you read rather passively when you're younger.  Taking an adventure in my imagination has been amazing, and traveling side-by-side with Bilbo and Thorin and company has thrilled me to my core.
The Lord of the Rings has been a part of my life since I was 7 or 8 years old.  Though this semester will be my first time reading the books for myself, the movies intrigued me at an early age.  Most of the imaginary adventures of my childhood were taken with Strider, Legolas, and Gimli, or with Merry and Pippin in some sort of mischief.  I can certainly say that I dearly love Jackson's movies, and I don't believe that this will change with the reading of the books.
Of course, being a slow reader, and being a bit slow to catch on to particular series of books (and even TV series), I've often seen the movie rendition of a story before I've actually read the book.  Now before you raise your cries of "Sinner!" and your gasps of horror, hear me out.  I love books.  I love stories! But again, I'm a little slow when it comes to reading, and between reading for school and everything else you do as a kid and later a young adult, reading books does not always fit in to the agenda (though I'm doing my best to amend that lately).  So, yes, I have seen most of the Harry Potter movies, and only just finished book 3 of the series a few weeks ago.  However, did that ruin the book for me? Well, the story is not as suspenseful perhaps, and I have more of an idea of what happens then I would otherwise.  But I would say I still loved the book as much as I would if I hadn't seen the movie first.  Perhaps because I'd only seen the 3rd movie once and so reading the book was like rediscovering the story again (and then, when I watched the movie afterwards, I was sorely disappointed about many things that were left out).
So that age-old question arises: is it a crime to read the books after having seen the movies? Well, here's my philosophy: you are more likely to enjoy the suspense and characters more in the book if you don't see the movie first.  Nevertheless, if you happen to see the movies before you read the books, the books can still hold innumerable riches for you.  Plus, there's a bit of a benefit to seeing the movie first: if the movie wasn't very good (or even if it was good), (most often) the book can only be better and more enjoyable than the movie was.

Well, that was a rather long tangent.... But now to get to the main subject mentioned in the title.  "The Hobbit."  Did I like the book better? And did Jackson's movies do it credit?

To the first: Yes. Definitely. The book was magical and a great adventure for my imagination.
To the second: I've been critical of Jackson's movies, as have most people who are great fans of Tolkien's work.  But, I think perhaps we're being unfair to say they were totally off-the-mark.

(1) Keep in mind that some decisions (making the book into three movies when it probably could have been done in one or two; Tauriel and Kili's "romance"; among others) were not entirely Jackson's decisions.  With any movie, you've got people to please: producers, who are paying for the movie, for one.  And, sometimes, in order to get a project that you love off the ground, you have to concede to decisions that you're not always a fan of.
(2) Certain things that Jackson chose to do, while not central in the book, do have some foundation there.  For example, Azog, the White Orc:

Ugly lookin' fella, ain't he? My thoughts exactly. What the heck is he doing in the movie?  I mean, he's mentioned in the book, but he's not a major character.  Yes, exactly.  

I'm not a big fan of this decision to make him a major villain throughout all 3 movies.  There are plenty of villains and antagonists in the original story: goblins, Gollum, wolves (Wargs, to be more exact), Mirkwood spiders (shudder), elves who imprison dwarves (not that they're villains, but they are antagonists), Smaug, and more goblins.  Plenty of villains! Why do you need Azog? Well, you don't really.  But the decision is not unfounded: a consistent villain throughout a series of movies is not a bad idea; in fact it can be a very good one.  For instance, in Harry Potter, Voldemort is consistently the one behind the bad things going on, though his bidding is often done by his agents.  Furthermore, by making Azog a major character and showing his alliance with Bolg, whom we don't encounter in the book at all until the Battle of the Five Armies, you build up more of a resentment of the leader of the goblin army.  So, while Jackson may not be a purist about sticking to the plot of the book, he is a smart filmmaker and knows how to make us dislike the villains.  Is that a very good reason for including Azog? Well, if I were making the movie, I would not have done the same. I'll say that much.  

I did find it interesting, though, that Azog's chosen steed is in the book.  The white Warg, though not of major importance, does show up after the dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo have escaped the goblin caves.  So Jackson's incorporation of that was interesting; though it could have been just as cool if the wolves had shown up alone and then the goblins had come and started the fire, like in the book.  

(3) What about all the stuff with Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel?  I don't think this was necessary; but, for those who may never read the books, it could be helpful and interesting to see some of the background to the Lord of the Rings.  It answers some of the questions of how Saruman became evil and where Gandalf was when he wasn't with the dwarves.  But this could have been done similarly to how Tolkien did it in the book: told and not seen.  

(4) Kili and Tauriel: Ick! No! Nonono. Stop it right now.  Obviously, dwarves and elves do not have good relationships going.  While there are exceptions (Gimli and Legolas, but much later on), and I wouldn't say it's true that in "The Hobbit" the dwarves and elves hate each other (as it is made to seem in the movie with Thorin's ultimate dislike of the woodland folk, which is not at all an aspect of Tolkien's story), the likelihood of a romance = 0.  However, this was another of those decisions that I don't believe Jackson was at the root of.  He didn't want to put that in there; but because it would be appealing to the teenaged audience, romance in the film is a good move for bringing in revenue.  And, since the producer's paying, most of the time the producer gets what he wants.  I won't even put a picture of them in here because...ew. Just no.

(5) Legolas: Well, I take the opinion of the "How it Should Have Ended Video:" 

Legolas isn't part of "The Hobbit."  I'm sure Tolkien had another place in mind where he would have been during the time that all of this was taking place.  At least a cameo in Mirkwood would have been all right; but...did he really need to be in the movie?  I would say "no."  There are more than enough characters you can develop in this story without adding another one, or two for that matter (*cough*Tauriel*cough*).  

(6) Beorn: Beorn could have certainly been given more screen time, and it would have been well-spent.  He's a very interesting character, and I would have liked to have seen more of him.  But, I was definitely guilty of watching: "Battle of the Five Armies" and saying "Oh come on!" in my head when Beorn just turns up in the battle.  It seemed unnecessary to me.  But then, I'm reading the book, and "...Oh. Beorn was there. In fact, he killed Bolg. ...Why wasn't that in the movie?!"  Well, we were too busy finishing of Azog, I guess.  However, I can't say that I'm not a little annoyed by the fact that Legolas gets Beorn's role of finishing off the ugly orc leader. And, while I'm on the subject of things I was wrong about...: I thought that more of the dwarves died in the Battle of the Five Armies than did in the movie.  But I was wrong. Just Thorin, Fili, and Kili.  Though I wished they had stuck with Fili and Kili's courageous act to shield Thorin's body when he was wounded.  

(7) Smaug: ...No complaints. 

 

You want: awesome, scary-looking, huge, intimidating, intelligent, fire-breathing, red dragon. You get: exactly that! And, bonus: he's voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. Who did a splendid job of it, I might add.  

(8) Alfred: ....Yeah....what was the point of that one? 

I thought I'd get an answer by the end...but that never happened.  Seriously...who is this guy? 

(9) Thorin: 

I was actually surprised as I read Tolkien's book again and found how minor of a role Thorin seems to have in the beginning of the story.  I mean, it is the account of Bilbo's adventures; but for someone as important at the end of the story as Thorin, it seemed a little odd.  But Tolkien knew what he was doing.  To talk too much about Thorin would have meant talking less about Bilbo, the hero of the story.  But, Jackson's decision to make Thorin a more central character is not one that I object to.  Among the dwarves, Thorin would have been the leader.  And I liked watching his character develop throughout the movies.  Some things (the obsession with the Arkenstone, his dislike of elves (which is nowhere in the book)) may have been slightly overdone. But I only say that the Arkenstone business was overdone because the movie failed to show the other dwarves being a bit overcome with the lust for treasure.  It wasn't just Thorin.  But, all-in-all, I liked Thorin's representation.  And, hey, it's Richard Armitage, who does a great job of being a king who wants his throne back, and has a bit of a pride problem.  

(10) Bilbo Baggins: 

Personally, I don't think they could've picked anyone better to portray our friend Mr. Baggins.  Martin Freeman, I salute you.  Best Bilbo ever! From his sneaking about the hobbit hole to make sure everyone was gone, to riding a pony, to encountering trolls, to riddles with Gollum (which was perfect) and Smaug, and everything else that Bilbo did, it was done exceptionally well.  And, just as I almost cried as I finished reading "The Hobbit" and reached the part where Thorin dies, I almost cried when it happened in the movie, too (though under circumstances quite different from the book).  And, at the end when Bilbo calls Thorin his friend, ...oh man.  Pulling on the heartstrings.  

Still, Tolkien's writing of Bilbo Baggins in the book is so fantastic that I don't think it can be outdone.     As I read, I found myself relating to Bilbo so many times.  I think there's a little of him in each of us: a side that loves adventure, and a side that longs for hearth and home.  Also, like him, we don't fully realize what we're capable of until we're put in a situation where we're hard pressed and our true colors begin to show.  That's what's a remarkable thing about Gandalf as a Christ-figure in Tolkien's books: he sees in Bilbo more than Bilbo sees in himself, and he gets Bilbo involved in a great adventure that will help him to discover who and what he truly is: a little hobbit in a great world, yes; but a little hobbit who can make a difference nonetheless.  

So, while not a perfect representation (few movies are, unfortunately), in the words of Bofur: "Well, that could've been worse."  I would have liked to see a movie that stayed closer to the book, certainly.  But I can't argue with the characterizations of Bilbo, Gandalf, the dwarves, Smaug, and Gollum.  While I read the book, I heard Martin Freeman's voice when I would read Bilbo's parts. I heard Ian McKellen when Gandalf is scolding Bilbo and the dwarves.  I heard Richard Armitage talking about the Kingdom Under the Mountain.  I heard the kind old voice of Balin, the lighthearted voice of Bofur, and so on and so forth.  So I must thank Peter Jackson for bringing them to life.  

But, I'm sure Jackson would agree with me that Tolkien's books are almost impossible to match in their ability to fill us with wonder.  The genius of this mythology that Tolkien himself created is amazing!  He achieved things in his writing that I can only dream of.  

And so, I salute the great creator of Middle-Earth, and look forward to the next adventure: "The Fellowship of the Ring."  

"Farewell, dear Bilbo...until our next meeting."