I watched the 2014
Left Behind movie, starring Nicholas Cage. Here are some thoughts:
- I did not care for the movie. Now, you may be thinking to yourself
that I am the sort of person who would not like the movie—-progressive,
an academic wannabe. But that would be a false conclusion. I enjoyed
the first two Left Behind books. I loved the audio series. I
liked the second movie produced by Cloud Ten. I can find myself
enjoying Christian apocalyptic thrillers, such as Tribulation. But I did not care for the 2014 Left Behind movie.
- The first thirty minutes were actually pretty good. Chloe Steele
and Buck Williams were expressing their doubts about the existence of
God, mostly focusing on the problem of evil. Rayford Steele was
justifying his wife’s religious conversion to his daughter, Chloe, who
thought that her mom had gone off the deep end. There was not much
religious or philosophical substance afterwards, though. There was a
lot of focus on landing the plane. I found that to be boring.
- The actress who played Hattie was nice to look at.
- Until they were raptured, there was nothing really that stood out to
me about the Christians. They were not necessarily nicer than the
non-believers who got left behind. They were nice, but even some of the
non-believers were good people who tried to help others. That may be a
point that the movie was trying to make: salvation is not about being a
good person, but is about receiving God’s forgiveness through Jesus
Christ. Nowadays, though, my theology and religious/spiritual life do
interrelate with the question of what type of person I should be; at the
same time, I am still a believer in humbly accepting God’s free grace.
- One thought that occurred to me as I watched this movie was: “Is
this true?” Of course, that is the question that the makers of the
movie want the viewers to ask themselves. I tried to recall
to my mind the arguments for and against Christian apologetics and
historical criticism of the Bible, and the arguments for and against the
pretribulational rapture. I recoiled from the thought of returning to
fundamentalism, feeling that, with all of my flaws, I am still in a
better place now than I was then. In the end, I recalled a post
that I wrote a while back about being ready for the second coming of
Christ, and I settled on what I wrote there. I believe that I have a
connection with God, even if I do not dismiss atheist or unorthodox
books as from the devil, or try to pressure or manipulate people into
accepting evangelical Christianity.
This post was not as long as I expected it to be, so allow me to
comment on something else that I watched that night. It was a
documentary about Bill Watterson, the creator of the famous and popular
comic strip
Calvin and Hobbes. It was called
Dear Mr. Watterson.
- I was never much of a Calvin and Hobbes person. I read it, but I liked Peanuts and Garfield
a lot better. Still, I was interested in seeing this documentary, for I
enjoy comics, and it’s interesting to hear the story of someone who
succeeded and made a difference in his profession.
- Someone who was interviewed said that he moved to a new neighborhood and did not know anybody, and reading Calvin and Hobbes
gave him an anchor during that time. It was something that he looked
forward to and enjoyed. I could identify with him there because there
have been things that have helped me through periods of alienation.
- Bill Watterson was said to be reclusive and a bit of a loner.
Someone in the documentary said that, when Watterson could have been out
there socializing, he instead stayed home and was perfecting his
craft. I hope that I, as a reclusive person, can succeed in my own
way. I also believe in trying to improve my social skills, but I try
not to beat up on myself if I fall short.
- Bill Watterson was unusual in the sense that he did not allow Calvin and Hobbes
to be licensed. Other cartoonists did, which is why you see Garfield
or Snoopy on lunchboxes, or advertisements, or as dolls. Watterson,
however, believed that this sort of commercialization compromised the
craft. It was interesting to watch Charles Schultz’s wife defending her
husband’s decision to license Peanuts—-she said that he saw it as an extension of his art. The documentary offered pros and cons about this issue.