'True Grit' review

** SPOILER warning. There are some, though it's a remake of a classic film, so it shouldn't really matter

The remake, as an institution in Hollywood, is justifiably reviled by most people. Generally when a film gets a remake it's precisely the kind of film that didn't need one--usually a classic or a widely appreciated film. If there wasn't this existing fan base or interest level, then the studios wouldn't bother remaking it. The irony being that there are thousands of bad films that might have had a novel concept, or a unique story, but which weren't executed well that actually need to be remade, but wouldn't generate any popular interest. Meanwhile these very good films that have followings and get remakes almost always do so with the result of an unnecessary and inferior product. But I suppose this is inevitable as the remake has shown itself to be effective economically.

So why was I feverishly anticipating the remake of True Grit, when the original is already heralded as a very fine Western? Simply enough, because of my faith in the Coen brothers. They are, first and foremost, auteurs so they wouldn't remake a film frivolously. For them to undertake the project there was undoubtedly something fresh that they felt that they could bring to the material. Additionally, it's only been a few years since the Coens gave us No Country for Old Men, which was kind of a brilliant neo-Western, so I felt confident they would be able to deliver the goods in the context of a more conventional Western as well.

While the Coens pretty consistently deliver fine products, some of their offerings don't quite meet my expectations--partially due to the fact that my expectations are always sky high, mind you-- while others exceed them, and True Grit is definitely an instance of the latter. This movie has everything. Vibrant characters given life by stellar performances, the Coens' signature comedic and moral sense, taut pacing, brilliant dialogue, and exquisite imagery. Bridges as Cogburn is unforgettable, and Steinfeld's Mattie Ross is a stunning performance. Roger Deakins' once again shows why he's probably the best cinematographer in the business. Carter Burwell has more to do this time around as True Grit features an excellent and noticeable score, while Burwell's 'score' on No Country For Old Men is one of the most subtle--bordering on nonexistent--scores of all-time. The script, while largely remaining true to the source material, features some distinctly Coen bros. flourishes that work superbly. I could go on about the technical quality of the film, but let's move on.

The comedy in the film is absolutely brilliant and is most pronounced in the first half of the film. The courtroom scene, the scene where Mattie is negotiating, and the scene in Mattie's bedroom are all laugh-out-loud hilarious and feature excellent comedic performances, though they aren't the only funny moments. Damon's portrayal of La Beouf and his exchanges with Cogburn and Mattie are all quite funny. The Coens are sticklers for particulars, and it's the details that really give the film its pulse. Many of the secondary characters are very memorable and often in comedic roles. But don't get it twisted; this isn't a rollicking burlesque. Even in the first half, one of the funnier gags is punctuated with the hanging of three men--which isn't really funny. This moment is a nice microcosm of the tone of the film; characteristic Coens humor mixed with the violence of the West.

Far from being a cynical deconstruction of the American west--which wouldn't be unexpected coming from the Coens--True Grit remains true to the source material and is a simple, honest-to-goodness, classical Western. Though it does have some slightly modern touches. For example, the violence of the West is portrayed in a more realistic light than most Westerns. Mattie Ross stares in horror as men get killed. Cogburn is truly saddened when he is forced to kill a man in self-defense. On a horse ride through an area where some minor characters bodies lay, Mattie and the camera focus intently on the fallen bodies, bringing back memories of the characters. And, most significantly, when Mattie gets her vengeance and kills the man who killed her father, it isn't a triumphant moment; in fact the kickback from her rifle thrusts her into a situation where she ends up badly injured and her life is in danger. Whereas in a typical Western bad guys are often just fodder for the good guys' guns, and their death is quick, silent and celebrated triumphantly. Minor characters especially get no hint of reverence as the camera barely even bothers to watch them hit the ground after they've been shot.

When the brothers Coen do adaptations rather than original works they have a knack for locating material perfectly suited to their cinematic sensibilities. Fargo, No Country for Old Men and now True Grit are all perfect examples of this. With True Grit the Coen brothers have further proven that they can make serious, artistic films that should also serve as crowd-pleasing popular fanfare, if crowds knew what was good for them. At once a traditional, conventional Western, and at the same time something more, True Grit is memorable film and a fine addition to the Coen Bros. oeuvre.

Obama - Closet Atheist?

No, these aren't fanatical, fringe, right-wing ravings. The speculation that Obama is actually an atheist has been primarily popularized by commentators on the left, such as Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens. Most political commentators won't venture into such highly theoretical realms, but I've heard the sentiments echoed many times by normal, everyday leftist types. Their reasoning being that someone as apparently intelligent as Obama couldn't possibly believe such irrational hogwash. Which is, of course, nonsense itself, but the rest of their case does make some sense.

The hypothetical motive that they propose is fairly obvious; atheist politicians in America are still taboo, to say nothing of an atheist president. Anyone with high political ambitions must profess faith of some sort in order to have any chance at being elected. And--perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not--Obama found Christianity late in life right around the time he was beginning his political career in Chicago.

If Obama is a religious person he tends to keep his convictions private, as he virtually never invokes the name of God (much less Jesus) except when concluding a speech with "God bless America", or when promoting religious relativism. The leftist atheist speculates that this is due less to his faith being a private matter than to his faith not existing at all. Further, if he was in fact sitting in the pews listening to the likes of Jeremiah Wright he didn't to seem to be very attentive as during his campaign he quickly denounced Wright's typical, standard-issue rhetoric, despite the fact he had been hearing it every Sunday for many years. Supposedly. Additionally, Obama is pro-choice and his political ideology in general could be described as secular progressivism--these are positions that shouldn't be easily reconcilable with his faith. All of these facts form the foundation for the conspiracy theory that Obama is actually a closeted atheist.

As conspiracies go this one is more coherent than the vast majority of them. It isn't too outlandish and doesn't require any bizarre assumptions. It doesn't have any gaps in logic, as far as I can see. It doesn't leave any significant pieces of information ignored or unaccounted for. It pinpoints a precise motive. However, the alternative explanation--that he is in fact a Christian, but a liberal or 'private' one, who, as a liberal that takes the 'wall of separation' between church and state seriously (much more seriously than he should), feels he shouldn't mix his personal faith with his public, secular duties--is at least equally as likely. The thing that's interesting to note is that even if the alternative explanation is true it still isn't a flattering portrayal of the man. If he's not an undercover atheist then he's a man who misunderstands the doctrines of his faith and the principles of the Constitution in equal measure.

Christians are not called to a personal, private life of devotion. We are called to love humanity and to spread the good news of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for the sins of the world. Now that's obviously more difficult to do than it sounds, and I certainly fail on this count as often as any Christian, but I don't think I'm holding Obama to any unreasonably high standard here. I'm not suggesting he should use his position as public servant to evangelize, but if he were merely to speak aloud the name of the Creator--his Lord and Savior--occasionally, then that would satiate me and quiet the rumblings of the conspiratorial atheists. But he remains conspicuously silent.

If we are to chalk his silence up to his unwillingness to breach the inviolable 'wall of separation', then he is merely ignorant of the countries founding principles and what the first amendment actually says and means. Or perhaps he feels that it's one of his professional duties to translate his specific, personal religious convictions into broader, universally applicable morals. Which is an understandable inclination, but this leads one to wonder where his primary allegiances lie; With God? With the American people? With his constituency?

So, while we can't say anything conclusively, all of the possibilities are fairly grim:

• Our president is a man who has no faith but cynically professes it for his own political ambition.
• Our president is a Christian who believes that his pieties can and should be kept private, despite every indication to the contrary contained in scripture.
• Our president believes there exists a 'wall of separation' between church and state that prevents, or at least strongly discourages, public expressions of faith by public officials, again despite all the evidence to the contrary.

It doesn't look as if there is any refuge for Obama on this count. Either the conspiracy theorists are right, or--almost just as bad--they're wrong. While the evidence that Obama is an atheist is sparse and speculative, the evidence that he is religiously confused or disingenuous is quite strong.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and The Worst Argument Against Design Ever

I saw a Youtube clip recently of the astrophysicist and atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson arguing against the notion that the efficiency and intricacy of the design in the universe that we observe must be attributable to a divine creator. There are many ways that opponents of the design argument attempt to respond, but this one was new to me. Tyson pointed out that human beings eat, drink and speak all using a single hole in their head. How much more efficient would it be if we had been blessed with two holes, one for gestation and one for communication. Imagine! If only Neil deGrasse Tyson were the creator of the universe, what a wonderful world this would be.

Eating and talking at the same time, without any interruption of the constant inane chatter that fills our lives. Seriously, what a lovely thought! The creator of this universe must have been smoking something when he decided it would be a good idea to make us occasionally stuff our yap-traps with sustenance. Did he not realize that we only have a limited time on this Earth, and that if we waste a great deal of it chewing, swallowing, maybe even thinking in silence, then we'll be unable to fulfill our purpose for this life which certainly must be to maximize our number-of-words-per-lifetime ratio? How shortsighted and foolish of him! No, an omnipotent being couldn't make so obvious and egregious an error, so I'm forced to conclude that no such being exists. My reasoning is exquisite, wouldn't you agree?

I believe that I have surpassed my mockery quota for the day. Suffice it to say that this argument is not only asinine, but is so in such a self-satisfied, unreflective, and arrogant manner as to be quite loathsome. Hopefully my abusive mockery made plain the ways in which the argument is utterly nonsensical, but if not, allow me to elucidate.

Tyson's argument assumes that humans are designed in a suboptimal way because our design prevents us from being able to speak incessantly. Undoubtedly Tyson also believes that the fact that the human body requires 8 hours of sleep a day is an epic tragedy--after all that's one-third of his life that is doomed to wordlessness. I know of very few humans who would admit without shame that they believe that their own words are so precious that they should never meet an occasion where they are forced into silence. Indeed there's many a fine proverb, from both East and West, that speaks of the wisdom and virtue to be found in silence. Listening, meditating, thinking, praying and, yes, eating. Not only is our value as humans not measured in the number of words we are able to utter, but there's some good reason to believe that a human's wisdom is often inversely proportional to the number of words they produce. As much as that pains me--a wordy person--to admit. If we are going to speculate as to the wisdom and efficiency of the creation then, if anything, this observation by Tyson bespeaks a profoundly thoughtful and efficient design plan of the creator. God may in fact have devised the human body in such a way--with a single hole for the dual purposes of gestation and speech--specifically to give the world some respite from the incessant, inane jabber of the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Who, in between meals, still managed to find the time to use his tragically limited number of words to formulate this preposterous argument.