Is hope good or bad?

Recently I've watched both The Shawshank Redemption (for the first time) and The Hunger Games (again). They are, of course, two completely different films - the former is about Andy Dufresne who is sentenced, wrongly, to life imprisonment and his experiences inside and, ultimately his desire to be free; the latter about a society in which rural districts are kept in poverty by the ruling Capitol who use an annual televised death match contested by young 'tributes' from each district as a tool to punish the districts for their past rebellion and keep them in line.

However, watching them so close together, I was struck by one theme in particular that they have in common - hope.

It comes out very strongly towards the end of The Shawshank Redemption in a conversation between Andy (Tim Robbins) and Red (Morgan Freeman):

Andy Dufresne: That's the beauty of music. They can't get that from you... Haven't you ever felt that way about music? 
Red: I played a mean harmonica as a younger man. Lost interest in it though. Didn't make much sense in here. 
Andy Dufresne: Here's where it makes the most sense. You need it so you don't forget. 
Red: Forget? 
Andy Dufresne: Forget that... there are places in this world that aren't made out of stone. That there's something inside... that they can't get to, that they can't touch. That's yours. 
Red: What're you talking about? 
Andy Dufresne: Hope.

 Andy recognises the power of hope, but Red also points out the danger of hope in a later conversation, when Andy's hopes of acquittal have been crushed:

Red: Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane. 

A similar sentiment is expressed by President Snow to the Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane, as events in this year's games are starting to provoke unrest in the outlying districts:

President Snow: Hope, it is the only thing stronger than fear. A little hope is effective, a lot of hope is dangerous. A spark is fine, as long as it's contained. 
Seneca Crane: [confused] So... 
President Snow: So, contain it! 

President Snow & Seneca Crane. Good facial hair, but it won't end well. Source.

All three men understand that the hope of a better future is a powerful thing to have inside of you. Andy sees it as a force that can make you strong against all opposition. Red, on the other hand, recognises the danger of uncertain hope - hope that does not come to fruition will ultimately crush you into a depression worse than anything experienced by those who just accept that their life isn't going to get any better. Snow identifies the power of that hope as a tool that can keep people in line - it is more powerful than fear, because it comes from within rather than being imposed from outside. But what is the nature of the hope that these men talk about? The final lines of The Shawshank Redemption are quite telling:

Red: [narrating] I find I'm so excited, I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head. I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel, a free man at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain. I hope I can make it across the border. I hope to see my friend and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope.

Red & Andy meet for the first time. Source.

It is an uncertain hope, a wish that things will turn out the way they want. In the end, Andy uses his hope as a drive to escape, fleecing the crooked warden in the process. His hope is fulfilled, but what if he had been caught at the end? What if he hadn't got away? I imagine the depression would have driven him to suicidal despair.

The apostle Paul recognises the futility of false hope:

³² If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
    for tomorrow we die.”  - 1 Corinthians 15:32 (NIV) 

An uncertain hope is a dangerous thing, it can turn on you, destroy you. But that's not the kind of hope that Paul talks about:

5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ² through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. ³ Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; ⁴ perseverance, character; and character, hope. ⁵ And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. - Romans 5:1-5 (NIV) 

 The Christian does not have a vague, wishful hope of Heaven and future glory. No, the Christian's hope is sure and certain. We do not put our hope and trust in the things of this world to satisfy us, but rather, looking forward we know that God will resurrect the dead and give us new, imperishable bodies and bring us to Heaven. Why? Because Jesus has already accomplished the victory - the result is certain!

Conclusion? We have a hope inside us that is not weak, to control us, our vulnerable, to crush us, but it is strong and guaranteed - that is the Bible's definition of hope. It's not an indefinite 'I hope it doesn't rain today', it's a certain 'I know that I will be in Heaven forever'. This hope is why Paul can say:

¹⁶ Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. ¹⁷ For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. ¹⁸ So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. - 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 (NIV)

When all is said and done, whatever people may say, whatever may happen, however we may fail, we are secure in Christ, and He will surely bring us to glory. So take courage, and pray that God will help us to fully comprehend the implications of this.

Avengers Awesomble

So Denise and I went to see the Avengers last night, and I have to say it was everything I expected it to be. If I had any criticisms it would be that they could have taken more advantage of 3D and they could have made it 3 hours long; I wanted more. Which I guess means they got it right.

The first thing they did right was getting Joss Whedon on board. He is perhaps best known for his creation of Buffy and Firefly, and is clearly someone who understands what is important in a superhero movie. His screenplay was spot on, full of clever lines, and making room for enough vs battles to satisfy a Marvel version of Tekken.

The heroes themselves are perfectly cast, and are, thankfully, continuations of the characters from their respective solo movies, and haven't been reduced to generic heroes. Mark Ruffalo is no second fiddle to Eric Norton as Dr Banner, and it's nice to see that no hero outshines the others. They have been given their roles and each gets their fair share of good lines and impressive moments. Special mention also goes to Tom Hiddlestone for turning in a more nuanced performance as antagonist Loki - his lingering jealousy adds a bit of depth to the classic 'bent on world domination' thing.

The special effects are also excellent, but whilst big, somehow never overwhelm the characters themselves. It's also nice to see responsible Captain America worrying about potential civilian casualties - usually ordinary people get forgotten in massive city-trashing action scenes.



This movie goes to show that people aren't tired of big loud special effects action films - but you need more than that to make a good film. By rigorously enforcing continuity through multi-film contracts, Marvel have constructed a believable universe with characters that we actually care about, and that makes all the difference. Michael Bay take note.

It'll be a tough act for the various sequels to follow, but Marvel have shown a sure hand so far. I just hope they can tie up some loose ends by getting Spiderman on board too, although I fear not.

Perhaps DC will get the message as well, and we'll one day see a Justice League of America movie. We can but hope.

What did you think? Have you seen it, what was your favourite part (try to avoid spoilers). Can The Dark Knight Rises top it?

Thor: Be careful what you say, Loki is my brother.
Black Widow: He killed 80 people in two days.
Thor: He's adopted.
(Seriously, I've never heard a cinema laugh that much in an action movie).

Tintin - my twopenneth

The day before yesterday Denise & I went to see the new Tintin film. We didn't see it in 3D, so I can't comment on that side of things (although I've heard the 3D work is good), but we did watch it in Digital, although I'm not quite sure what the difference is supposed to be in terms of experience.

When I first saw they were releasing a film that wasn't the old TV series I was rather concerned. I've seen movie adaptations of books I like before, and they're often just a little bit disappointing. The strength that the TV series had was that it used the same drawings as the original books - it was just an animated book - not much room to screw things up there.

However, having watched it my fears were quelled and then some. I've watched a few adaptations (looking at you Harry Potter) where you end up with the feeling that the filmmakers didn't really get the books or just weren't fans the way you were (I mean, seriously, how could you consider it even remotely acceptable to leave out winning the Quidditch Cup from Prisoner of Azkaban?? That was the best bit of the book.), but I felt watching Tintin that the creators cared enough to not just approximate the books but also reproduce them. One of the most enjoyable things was seeing that so many characters who appear once and are utterly insignificant were still renderings of the drawings used in the books (example, check out the market seller right at the beginning vs. the same character in Secret of the Unicorn, or the crew of the Karaboudjan). Now, I will say that they've changed story elements, the bad guy in the film wasn't the bad guy in those books, and they've blended The Crab with the Golden Claws with Secret of the Unicorn (which tbh, I expected them to do), but the fact remains that they've included a lot of the material from the books and they've done it in a way that is completely in keeping with the spirit of them, so for once I don't mind.

It's also one of the few adaptations I've seen where the characters are mostly like I imagined them - Jamie Bell is a perfect fit for the youthful sound of Tintin without sounding like a child, while Andy Serkis (of Gollum & King Kong fame) is excellent as Haddock (one day he'll land a major role in a major film where you get to see his face), and Bianca Castafiore is also spot on (I was impressed that they even managed to capture in sound the painful noise that Haddock experiences whilst letting you see why others consider her so good, a job I doubted they could pull off).

Full credit also for the adoption of the motion capture animation. People have said negative things about films like the Polar Express that use it, but the characters looked alive in this, whilst still fairly representing their cartoonish features. One frustration I've had with CGI people in films is that their movements don't quite look real - they're just a little to smooth (or sometimes to jerky) and don't quite feel like they interact with the environment properly - but motion capture gets round that to a fair extent because humans provide the movement and you can really see it in the excellent swashbuckling flashbacks and a few punch-ups (also congratulations to Spielberg for not cutting out the fights and guns of the books - like the books no one actually gets shot dead but it's good to see they've maintained that side of things - you don't have to cut it out for it to qualify as a family film).

So all in all I was thoroughly satisfied with the job they've done with it - it's so nice to watch a film where you know the makers cared as much about the little details as you do - it's clearly the work of someone who wanted to bring the books to life rather than just exploiting the license. Bring on the (highly probable) sequel.

Audio gives the most bang for your buck

I tweeted earlier about how listening to the Dark Knight soundtrack makes even mundane tasks like tidying your wardrobe feel slightly heroic. And that reminded me of a comment I half-remembered from George Lucas.

In this interview, George Lucas comments on how he believes that audio is 50% of a movie's impact, and a good soundtrack gives you the most bang for your buck in terms of impact.

Given that he worked on Star Wars I can see why he thinks that. But it's probably true, if you ever watch a scene (esp. the threatening ones) and consider what's actually happening onscreen vs. the way the music makes you feel, you'll realise what an effect it has.

I was searching for a source for the quote when I came across this interview with John Williams about the Star Wars soundtracks. The most interesting part for me were his comments on how an orchestral score appealing to the traditional nature of the stories was an important factor in its popularity, his thoughts on George Lucas' modifications to the original films, and a nice story about how the cantina band tune came about. Worth a look.